Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement.
Yesterday afternoon a concerted attack was made on the Lenadoon Army post on the edge of the Andersonstown district in Belfast. This post, which had been under continuous attack for the previous three days, is in an inter-face position and, therefore, important as a means of preventing sectarian conflict. During this attack some 400 rounds were fired at the post and a digger loaded with an explosive device was rolled down the hill at the post. The device exploded and there was damage to the post but, fortunately, no civilian or military casualties. It was clear that the post could not be maintained unless the area from which it was being attacked by gunmen was occupied. Accordingly, the Army moved into the area in strength and is now dominating it.
In the Divis Street flats area, Belfast, there was also an extensive gun battle last night. I am informed that some 3,000 rounds were fired at security forces, who fired 1,000 rounds in return. The Army is now occupying the Divis Street flats.
I regret to inform the House that two soldiers were killed and three soldiers were wounded in these two operations. The Army believes that it hit 28 gunmen.
There were here two considerable military operations of a clearly offensive character against the Army and endangering the lives of the residents of the areas, many of whose houses were hit by terrorist fire. Rocket launchers have also been used in the area by the terrorists for the first time. These greatly multiply the risks of damage and casualties. The

Army, therefore, with my authority responded by action to control the areas from which the attacks were launched and to protect itself and the civil population. It is now clear that the security forces and the civil population of these areas have become the objects of deliberate terrorist attack of a character avowed by the terrorists to be of "the utmost ferocity".
Her Majesty's Government's policy remains to seek to reconcile the differences of the two communities whilst acting with the greatest firmness against lawlessness and terrorism wherever it appears.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last night he made a speech outside the House confirming his firm belief in following up the policy he entered upon a few months ago? I note his final paragraph. Before turning to the events of last night, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how they fit into his overall philosophy?
May I repeat my request for greater publicity for the security rôle of the forces in Northern Ireland, so that all will know clearly what reaction will come from the Army? In this context, what is the Army being told to do? What are its military aims? We note that the Lenadoon Estate is at the meeting place of Catholic and Protestant areas, but it must be clear what the military aim is.
With regard to last night, as it all stemmed from the row about the allocation of houses which ended the truce, what steps can be taken while the battle is going on, while the military confrontation is going on, to clear up the procedures in that respect?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while I have questioned him with the aim of his making clear in the House—as he has done before, but now in the light of his speech last night—his own support for his initiative and reconciliation, which we on this side firmly support, we note the use of rocket launchers by the IRA and the events of last night? We can only observe that it takes two to make peace, and say yet again—at the risk of repetition, but it must be saidagain—that we hope that in the next day or two the IRA will see the wisdom of coming back to peace and a truce.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. First, I should make it clear that I reconcile what happened last night with my firm and continuing belief in the Government's policy simply by saying that terrorism and lawlessness must be met by the Army. The Army has a duty to protect the civilian population and also a duty, which we in this House owe to it, to protect itself as well. It is there to keep the peace, to protect the civilian population and to protect itself.
I judged that unless the action which I authorised at the Lenadoon Army post was taken there would be danger to the civilian population and to the Army. Nor can one regard with indifference the fact that 3,000 rounds of ammunition were fired at the security forces in the Divis Street flats area. A response to that must be taken both in the interests of the population of the area and in the Army's own interests. I reaffirm that the Army's duty is to keep the peace and prevent inter-sectarian conflict, and in this task, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) mentioned the other day, it has the absolute right to orders enabling it to protect itself.
As to the housing problem, from which much of this has arisen, the real tragedy of the situation is that all the time these attacks on the Army post have been going on in the last four days my officials have been discussing with all concerned, including the housing executive, how to solve the problem. One of my officials was discussing the problem in the area at the same time as the shooting was going on last night and at the same time as the digger with an explosive device was rolled down the hill at the post. Shortly before that took place, he was speaking to me on the telephone about the next meeting which he was hoping to have to solve the housing problem.
Every effort has been made by my office and by many other people to solve the particularly difficult housing situation in the area, but those who have decided to act in the way they have appear to be determined to use force. I believe that peace and persuasion could have been the answer.

Mr. Kilfedder: I express my admiration and the admiration of all law-

abiding people in Northern Ireland for the soldiers. Violence increases day by day, and we have an admiration for what they manage to do in the face of terrorism and with the political restraint which is imposed upon them. I also join in the sympathy expressed by my right hon. Friend for the relatives of the soldiers who have died.
Does my right hon. Friend realise that many people in Northern Ireland feel that the so-called truce has enabled the IRA to regroup, retrain, and collect arms, ammunition and explosives? We in Ulster feel that we are back to the position of years ago, and that we might have settled for something far less than the terror which exists in Ulster.

Mr. Whitelaw: If my hon. Friend belives that one can regroup and retrain in a fortnight, I do not. I suppose that my hon. Friend believes that at some stage in the last three years the problem was near to solution. Few people would agree with him in that view. I fear it is not so. I accept what he says about the Army but I never quite know what he means by "political restraint". In the case of the Lenadoon Army post, I authorised the Army to go in, occupy and dominate the area. I do not see that there was much political restraint in giving the Army that authority.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Secretary of State accept that we continue to regard his efforts in Northern Ireland with admiration and with agreement? Will he also express our sympathy to the Army. It should also be made clear that he cannot possibly succeed unless he has the active support of the Irish people. It is their quarrel, not ours. They cannot have it both ways. The murder of British soldiers cannot go on, with the blowing up of their country and the imposition of no-go areas, if at the same time they expect the British to make good all the damage, to provide more soldiers to be shot at and to supply generous social services. The moderate people of Ireland must now take an active part in imposing some sort of order and decency on their unhappy land, otherwise there is only one end.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the alternative is for the British to leave, to refuse to make good the damage and to refuse to supply more soldiers in a


quarrel which is not theirs? Then an appalling situation would be left. The Irish would have to fight it out on their own, and parts of Northern Ireland would no doubt be returned to Eire. In the end the damage will become immense, the tragedy abysmal and Ireland will be left to pick up the pieces.

Mr. Whitelaw: I remain firmly of the view, which I have always stated, that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. If I did not believe that it was our duty to do everything in our power to help solve this grave problem, clearly I should not have taken the job. I accept that there will be setbacks and disappointments, and there certainly are at the moment. However, one cannot be diverted from a course by such matters. We have an honour and a duty, as Ulster is part of the United Kingdom, to do everything in our power to solve the problem. We have our duty to do our utmost with our forces and with our money to help the people of Northern Ireland. That must be, and that we will continue to do. I give that firm assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
It is a comparatively small number of extremists on both sides who cause much of the trouble. The IRA's campaign has been the one which has caused all the damage over these three years. However, over-reaction by other extremists makes a solution more difficult. I pay great tribute to the resolution and steadfastness of the majority of the population, which has withstood so much suffering without being provoked. It is important to bear that in mind.
As for the people of moderate views coming forward—yes, they must do so. Against that background I accept that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government and the security forces to provide the conditions of law and order in which they are able to do so.

Mr. Sharples: I fully and wholeheartedly support the action taken by my right hon. Friend. Will he confirm that the policy remains that of trying to divorce the gunmen from the support which they receive from the population? Does he agree that one of the reasons for the violent action now being taken is the success which that policy was having?

Mr. Whitelaw: I confirm that that must remain the policy. There is some truth in what my hon. Friend has said. I should also point out that the great enemy of any solution in Northern Ireland is fear on the part of both sides. It has to be accepted that fear of some of the recent manifestations of extremism on the Protestant side has had a considerable effect on the minority community. That must be accepted. There have been fears on both sides, and it is these fears which we have to try to do our best to eradicate if we are to solve the problem.

Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he continues the policy of reconciliation he has our full support? In particular, the Army has our sympathy in the difficult rôle which it has to play. We would not wish the British Army to withdraw from Northern Ireland, with the attitude in this country of "Let them fight it out amongst themselves". The dangers that that would have for Ireland and perhaps this country would be too terrible to imagine. Therefore, a policy of withdrawal would not be one which I could support.
Will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether the people allocated houses by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive—this was the cause of the outbreak of the trouble last Sunday—have now moved into the houses which they were legally given by the executive?

Mr. Whitelaw: These families were allocated houses by the housing authority on Monday, subject to security considerations in the area. Those security considerations have not yet been satisfied. It was that problem that my officials were seeking to solve with all concerned. I fear that that remains the position. The events of last night make it all the more difficult to resolve the problem, but I believe it could have been resolved.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who live in Northern Ireland are saddened but not surprised by the recent run of events over the last couple of days? In particular, can he say whether there has been any change in the profile and rôle of the Army generally in Northern Ireland in the light of the considerable increase in


IRA activity, especially its campaign in Belfast and Londonderry?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the belief of many of us that the IRA has to be beaten, and beaten physically into the ground? Can he give the House any details about both the murder and the torturing of a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment which we read about on the tape a few minutes ago? Will he look urgently at the arrangements for the security of members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and their families?
Can my right hon. Friend give the House any information about when the Government intend to proceed with legislation for the plebiscite on Northern Ireland? May we have an assurance that this will be before the Summer Recess so that the referendum may proceed as a matter of urgency in the early autumn?

Mr. Whitelaw: I must not comment on what my hon. Friend has said about a member of the UDR, for I have no information myself. I will certainly look into it.
I should have thought that what I have said about what the Army has done in response to terrorist activities in Belfast and the very important response in Londonderry, where we regard the bombing campaign of recent days as extremely serious, would show that the Army must and will respond to terrorist activities of this sort and must and will protect the civil population.
I am never sure about the argument about being beaten physically into the ground. What I believe is that terrorists must be shown that they have no part in a community, that violence does not pay. That is the way to end terrorist campaigns, and it always has been.
I must tell my hon. Friend and the House that in the security situation that we now have I should have grave doubts about the wisdom of having such a plebiscite—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend laughs——

Mr. Stratton Mills: Mr. Stratton Mills indicated dissent.

Mr. Whitelaw: I should have grave doubts in that security situation, and I must have regard to the security situation in any consideration of a plebiscite.

Mr. Orme: The House will welcome the Secretary of State's words about the referendum, which would only be inflammatory in the extreme at the moment.
Following the disastrous events of last Sunday and the subsequent events of yesterday, is he taking steps to renegotiate a ceasefire? In the talks that he is having about, for instance, the allocation of houses, is the subject of a ceasefire being introduced? There were reports yesterday that the Army had been pressing for a change of policy from the low profile approach. Will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm that his initiative remains, that the low profile approach remains, that there is no basic change in his policy of reconciliation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I confirm that there is no basic change in my policy of reconciliation. Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear in my answer to the last question about a referendum or a plebescite, which was part of the original package put forward by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that it is only a question of its timing which is affected by the security situation. I must reaffirm that position.
The position about renegotiating or negotiating a cease fire must be made perfectly clear. If those who are practising violence decide that it is better to have a cease fire, no one will welcome it more than I shall, but they are the people who are creating the violence now, and to that I must respond.
I do not think that hon. Gentlemen should pay attention to what are said to be Press reports about Army reaction. The Army and the rest of the security forces in any situation are there to carry out the policy of the Government of the day. They fully recognise that, and they always will. The orders and instructions given to the Army in any particular situation are clearly a matter of Her Majesty's Government policy, and that situation will remain.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree with me when I say that the vast majority of right-thinking people in Northern Ireland will endorse what he has said today in the House about his admiration for British troops who are facing a difficult and tragic situation and in his expression of sympathy to


those who have been bereaved in these last few hours of great tragedy?
Would the right hon. Gentleman also agree with me when I say that if there were a similar happening in any other part of the United Kingdom there would be a similar reaction among the majority of the population? Would he not agree that the time has come for the IRA no longer to call the tune in this matter, the very thing it wants to do? If he is to postpone the plebiscite the IRA will tighten its grip on the situation and seek to postpone the plebiscite over and over again.
Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the time has come for his Government to take an initiative firmly and strongly against any section of the community that would defy the authority of the Crown forces in Northern Ireland? Would he spell out at the Dispatch Box that it is his aim that all people in Northern Ireland, irrespective of class or creed, must be subject to the law and must be equal under the law?

Mr. Whitelaw: I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's last observation. What I can never accept, after some experience in Northern Ireland, is comparisons between the situation in Northern Ireland and that in other parts of the United Kingdom, because the problem has been in Northern Ireland for a very long time and it is a very different situation. One cannot make a comparison with happenings over the whole of the United Kingdom.
I note what the hon. Gentleman has said about taking an initiative.
As for the IRA calling the tune on the plebiscite, I think that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree with me that it has been the extreme actions on both sides which have exacerbated the situation and that when that happens it is extremely difficult to have a plebiscite, because extremists on both sides would, I fear, seek to exploit it, and that would create a very dangerous situation. These are the problems of timing that I must take into account.

Mr. Fitt: No doubt the Secretary of State will be aware that it is not only the Republican forces which are determined to defeat his intiative, but that in the past two or three weeks, particu-

larly since the cease fire, we have seen the emergence of other forces determined to defeat his efforts?
Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the attacks made on him personally and politically by spokesmen of the Unionist Party during the 12th July demonstration? Has he taken into account the fear and frustration now being generated throughout the minority community because of the massive wave of intimidation and the efforts of the illegal UDA forces?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that he is now in danger, because of the existence of this fear, of allowing the Catholic community to be weaned back into giving at least passive support to members of the IRA because Catholics feel that they need some form of protection because of the fear of intimidation throughout Belfast?
Would the right hon. Gentleman further agree with me that there is now an air of disenchantment within the minority community, and particularly among the elected representatives of the minority community, that he is in some way being intimidated or pressed into not releasing further detainees since his promise to do so if the security position allowed? Will he now accept that internees still being interned will create a running sore throughout the minority community in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: When one has a job such as I have, one has to accept that one will receive attacks and vilifications from all sides, and one just has to take them and continue to do one's best and do what one believes to be right. I have had my share of attacks from all quarters, and I simply accept them and carry on.
As for the problems and fears of the minority community, I hope that, with his considerable influence and efforts, the hon. Gentleman will make it clear that these responses to terrorist action are to defeat the terrorists, who are as much a danger to the minority community as they are to the whole of Northern Ireland. It is important to stress that.
It is also important to remember, for example, that at Lenadoon, for instance, it was not only a problem of the Army post. It was also a problem of the houses in the area which were being hit


by terrorist gunfire. It is that sort of action that the Army must seek to prevent. I hope that one can persuade the minority community that it is the Army's job to protect everyone and to preserve law and order to the best of its ability in a difficult situation.
I am not prepared to be intimidated by anyone either way, but I must point out that I have always said that in considering the release of internees I would have to have regard to the records of those concerned and to the climate in which they would be released. Alas, in the last week that climate has become much worse, but I have to take account of that situation.

Mr. Evelyn King: In the light of the intense strain which must rest upon the Army—and I have in mind not only the strain on the individual soldier, of which we are all aware, but the numerical strain which must rest upon the Ministry of Defence, and the Army after all other duties around the world—is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the recruitment to the Ulster Defence Regiment is not in any way being limited and that its equipment is sufficient? Would he accept that it seems likely that the regiment ought to have an increasing rôle in the troubles that clearly lie ahead?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. I can give my hon. Friend all those assurances about the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr. McManus: Would the Secretary of State sketch in briefly the proper background to the tragic events of last night and the last few days? Is he aware that he can do so by honestly answering a few questions for the benefit of the House and the community in Northern Ireland?
First, why is it that the Army has stopped two peaceful protests through the centre of Belfast, in which no one lives, was used to force an offensive Orange parade through a predominantly Catholic section of Portadown? In the light of events like that, how is the minority to regard the Army as being anything but biased?
The right hon. Gentleman has always said that the release of internees would be dependent on the ending of violence. He has had a cessation of violence for a fortnight, but for three weeks not a single

internee was released. How, then, does he expect the minority to place confidence in what he says?
Thirdly, would the hon. Gentleman explain the actions of one Army general placed in two situations. On the last Sunday in June he was faced with a crowd of people who were peacefully defying an Army ban. He ordered paratroops in against them. On Monday, 18th June, or whatever date in June it was, when this same General Ford was faced with a crowd masked and armed he parleyed with and appeased them. How is the minority to regard the fact that Mr. Craig, a former Unionist Government Minister, can go about nightly making ferocious anti-minority speeches and appear not to be amenable to the law?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the last point about Mr. Craig not being amenable to the law, there is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, no law against making speeches against the Government of the day; Mr. Craig is entitled to his views, and he expresses them very forcibly.

Miss Devlin: What about the Incitement to Hatred Act?

Mr. Whitelaw: Mr. Craig is entitled to make speeches. There are lots of people who incite hatred in their speeches from time to time.[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."]
As for the question of the parade in Portadown, this was a traditional Orange parade, and the route had been agreed. Everyone knew that the route had been agreed, and it was in those circumstances unreasonable of those who sought to try to stop the parade. I think the blame lies not with the Army, which I fully support, but with those who deliberately tried to provoke an incident and stop the parade.
As for the point about the internees, the hon. Gentleman says that I had a ceasefire for two weeks, and that is true, but during that time I had considerable violent scenes and a great number of assassinations of all sorts going on.

Mr. McManus: You cannot blame the internees.

Mr. Whitelaw: I had to have regard to this in the policy I was pursuing.
Dealing with the hon. Gentleman's attack upon a particular Army general, I resent that very much because, having worked with him and having seen what he has done, I have the fullest possible confidence in General Ford. In the particular incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers, with the masked armed men, General Ford did not in any way, as is suggested by the hon. Gentleman, give way on that occasion. Far from it. The position was maintained, barriers which those concerned wanted to bring down in five streets were not brought down, and General Ford had my specific instructions that they were not to be. I would like to make that perfectly clear. I think he handled the situation with considerable skill, and I, therefore, resent the attacks made upon him.

Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all welcome the news of the strong action taken by the Army facing an extremely difficult position in Northern Ireland but that we feel it is a matter of regret that it takes 3,000 rounds to persuade the Army to take effective steps—I presume the steps it has taken are effective? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that there are many other parts of Northern Ireland where the Army has been under similar attack—the Taggart Memorial Hall, the Army stations round the Bogside area, for example. Would he agree that the no policy of reconciliation or appeasement towards the IRA is any better than it would be towards the Nazi or other Fascist forces in Europe or Japan during the last war.

Mr. Fitt: The UDA.

Mr. McMaster: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the only way to save lives in Northern Ireland is to bring these evil and perverted men of the Republican Army to justice as quickly as humanly possible?

Mr. McNamara: What about your Army?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would certainly wish to bring all those who break the law to justice at the earliest possible moment, and will continue to do so. It is not correct to say that it took 3,000 rounds to provoke the Army in this case. That was the total number of shots fired at the Army. The Army fired 1,000. As

I have told the House, it is now occupying the area of the Divis Street flats, and I hope that it will quieten the situation, as is the purpose. As for my hon. Friend's other comments, I think it is unwise for me to over-react or to make accusations one way or the other. I do not believe that in a very difficult situation they do good.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, irrespective of any vilification he may receive from any quarter, that he has the respect, admiration and support not only of the people of this country but, I believe of the people of the Republic of Ireland and the majority of the people in the North? While he is considering the terrible things that have happened of late in a military sense, will he continue to bear in mind that the housing, social and economic problems are at the base of most of the fears of the people in Ireland? Will he continue to press for a solution to these things?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. I entirely agree that the housing, social and economic factors are the important things. If only those—the terrorists in particular—who resort to violence, would give one a chance to get on with these matters it would be possible to reach a reasonable solution more quickly. Violence and terrorism make it extremely difficult to promote successful employment, to bring jobs into the area, but we are proceeding with these things as fast as we can.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me as the Member for the Lenadoonarea an assurance that his actions and the actions of the Army will be welcomed by all the law-abiding citizens in the Suffolk area? Will he also accept from me confirmation of his statement at the weekend that it was the IRA and not the Army who broke the truce? Is he aware that the first four shots of the resumption of the campaign by the IRA were fired at a group of women to whom I was speaking and that, in fact, one of them was shot?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the vacancies in the Lower Lenadoon Avenue which have been much talked about were created a fortnight ago by


Protestants being driven out under gunfire from the IRA and that I spoke to a constituent, an old-aged pensioner, who had been shot at as he went to take a bottle of milk from his refrigerator? Will my right hon. Friend consider again the possibility of establishing a sterile belt across Lenadoon Avenue to prevent this lava flow of terrorism down the mountainside from the Glen Road area?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's confirmation on the first point. I have no doubt that it was the IRA who broke the truce; there can be no question of doubt about that, and my hon. Friend confirms it. I note what my hon. Friend says about the problems of intimidation in Lenadoon Avenue. My hon. Friend knows this area well. It was because of fears of intimidation that I set up the protection agency. I wished to stop intimidation and to do everything I could to stop it. I will continue to do that, because intimidation on all sides is one of the great difficulties of the housing problem. I shall certainly look into the other points which my hon. Friend made about that area.
However, there was intimidation in the area of the Ainsworth Street confrontation where 50 Catholic families were involved, but since the action taken there, and since the protection given by the Army, while some people, I fear, have moved, others have expressed their satisfaction to my office and to the Army on the spot for the way in which the Army has protected them from intimidation. The Army has performed considerable tasks in stopping intimidation on all sides and in all areas, and such work as it has done should be publicly recognised in this House.

Miss Devlin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while the most obvious tragedies and certainly the attention of politicians and Press alike seem to concentrate on Belfast and Derry as the two city areas, the rate of intimidation has grown throughout the countryside of Northern Ireland and the fears of the Catholic population has grown in respect of one particular point, namely, the fear of involvement of certain members, and possibly of growing numbers of members, of the Ulster Defence Regiment in the Ulster Defence Association? A number

of such cases has already been brought to the attention of local Ulster Defence Regiment commanders. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information about how many weapons and rounds of ammunition belonging to the Ulster Defence Regiment commanders. Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information about how many weapons and rounds of ammunition belonging to the Ulster Defence Regiment are recorded as lost or stolen or as having strayed in rural areas like Tyrone?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Lady makes a very serious accusation about the connection of the Ulster Defence Regiment with the Ulster Defence Association. If she has specific evidence of that, she owes it to me to send it to me in writing at the earliest possible moment. I should, in fairness to everybody concerned, have such allegations in writing, and I hope that the hon. Lady will send them to me.
As for the other points she has raised, naturally I will look into them, but I have no evidence to confirm what she says.

Mr. Maginnis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to get peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is to bring the violence to an end as speedily as possible? Will he pursue the gunmen with firmness and fairness so that reconciliation can be achieved between all sides in the community and they can come together and discuss in harmony the various problems of Northern Ireland?
Can my right hon. Friend say what it is that makes the IRA fight on? What more does it want? What is it asking for? Does it want a united Ireland by force, or does it want to destroy Northern Ireland completely? This is the key to the question. If my right hon. Friend can say why the IRA is fighting on, it will go a long way to solving the problem.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that there can be no doubt in any of our minds that the ending of violence—and firmness in bringing it to an end—is an absolutely vital pre-requisite to any other actions. We may differ on the best way of ending the violence, but there can be no doubt that it must be ended.
My hon. Friend ask why the IRA fights on. I should have thought that it


was clear to anyone that it will not achieve its aims by violence. If its aim is to destroy Northern Ireland, which I do not believe, it has to be met the whole way along the line, and some people believe that that is so. On the other hand, if it is, as I pray it is, that there are people who can see that the way in which to change the country in which they live, if that is their desire, is to do it by peaceful means, then all of us in this House must plead guilty to that because that is what we are in politics for. We do it by peaceful means. We may disagree on how we should go forward, but we do so in peace and not through violence. If there are those in the IRA who want to see changes made but wish them to be made peacefully and without violence, I wish to goodness that they would take that course, because it is the only way.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that of the allegations made by the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) one is plainly true, and that is that the situation in Ulster is very much worse than it was when the right hon. Gentleman took charge?[Hon. Members: "Rubbish."] Will the right hon. Gentleman take comfort from a peculiar characteristic of this Assembly; namely, that it seems that the more events prove a Minister to be wrong, the more popular he becomes here, even to the point of the return from Munich, and the more unpopular become those whom events show to be right in their prognostications?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is one of those in life who are able to say "I told you so". Perhaps he feels that he is in a position to say that to me, but it is not always one of the wisest things to say, even if one is in a position to say it. I have been in a position to say it. I could have said it to the hon. and learned Gentleman on other occasions, but I have not done so. He has decided to say it to me in somewhat offensive tones. I am rather surprised, because our personal relations have not been conducted on that basis. But, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to say it, I will retaliate.

Mr. Pounder: Did I hear my right hon. Friend aright? Did he say that he

authorised the Army to go into Lenadoon last night in the strength that it did? If so, it raises the question of where the line should be drawn between the rôle of the Army commander on the spot and the point at which perhaps higher authority is required. Will my right hon. Friend clarify that point?
Revertingto the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), surely it is of the utmost importance that we get the legislation for the plebiscite through this House before the Summer Recess so that when the security situation permits we can go ahead without the further delay of having the referendum or plebiscite. It is important not to give the impression, which I am sure my right hon. Friend did not mean to give, that if people shoot or shout loud enough they can have this much needed, much required and much requested plebiscite put off almost indefinitely?

Mr. Whitelaw: The question of legislation in this House is not for me. As for the authority of the Army commander on the spot, I think the best answer I can give to that is that the Lenadoon move was authorised by me especially in this case since it was at that time that my officials were seeking to solve the particular problem in the area, and that clearly involved me.
Equally clearly, the confrontation with the UDA the other night was again something which had to be referred to me. Equally on the question, for example, of the Divis Street flats area where a number of rounds were fired at the security forces, who fired back, the decision to occupy the flats in the interests of this area was taken by the Army commanders on the spot, without my authority, although I would have given it at that time, had I been asked; but it was a military decision on the spot.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) spoke a moment ago he spoke without the knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of this discussion, and that, although the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is entitled to his fox hunting eccentricities, he is not entitled in any sense to


speak for this side of the House? Whatever difficulties and differences there might be between us on anything else at all, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. and learned Member spoke entirely for himself and not for this side of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I may just simply say that I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that, possibly, I was a little sharp in answer to the Munich taunt of the hon. and learned Member: perhaps as one seeking reconciliation I should restrain myself on these occasions, but I really thought the Munich taunt went a little far.

MR. JOHN POULSON (BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS)

Mr. Thorpe: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I seek to make a personal statement.
In the exchanges on the point of order raised yesterday by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), of which I had received no prior notice, I used a phrase in my spontaneous reply, by which I may inadvertently have misled the House. I correctly informed the House that a journalist, a member of the Lobby, had, on instructions from his paper, made inquiries of a member of my staff to ask whether I had received a letter containing statements about certain councillors on Teesside formerly associated with Mr. Poulson, which the newspaper already knew from independent sources had been sent to me. I correctly told the House that the receipt of the letter was subsequently confirmed to the journalist in question. Towards the end of my remarks I said:
Neither I nor my staff have at any stage disclosed an anonymous letter."—[Official Report, 13th July, 1972; Vol. 840, c. 1856.]
This is not fully accurate. I now know that a member of my staff was asked by the journalist whether he might inspect the letter. Having first made it that, therefore, on my return from West clear that the letter was anonymous, and Africa I would be unlikely to take action upon it, he agreed to let the journalist see it, thus enabling him to compare its contents with the information already in the possession of the newspaper.
Whilst, therefore, I wish to make it clear that the information published in the Press did not originate, from my office, nor did my office seek to effect its publication, I regret that my suggestion yesterday that no member of the Press had actually seen the letter was incorrect, and for that I apologise to the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EDUCATION AND LIBRARIES)

11.53 a.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
That the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order. For our guidance, Mr. Speaker, will you kindly tell the House how long we shall have for discussing this first draft order which the hon. Gentleman is now moving?

Mr. Speaker: The length of the debate will of course depend on the number and length of the speakers, but under the Standing Orders debate on this order can go till 5.30 p.m.

Mr. Channon: We have had a long discussion about the extremely serious security situation in Northern Ireland and I know that there may be some hon. Members who will not necessarily wish to turn from that to the more prosaic subject of the reform of education and libraries in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I believe that it is extremely important to do so. It is the aim of the extremists to destroy all progress in normal life and they must not be allowed to do that. Therefore I think it right that this House from time to time should turn its attention from the day-to-day security situation to the reforms set out and being considered, particularly in local government, which I think will have major significance for the life of Northern Ireland.
Before coming to the order perhaps I may be permitted to tell the House that since I have been entrusted by my right hon. Friend with the task of looking after education in Northern Ireland I have had an opportunity of visiting a great many schools in the Province. I


would have visited many more but for the fact that their holidays begin a good deal earlier than school holidays in the rest of the United Kingdom. I have been most impressed by the standard of education in Northern Ireland and, as I told the House last Thursday in reply to a Question, attendance in schools has been astonishingly high during the past three years. Considering the appalling situation which the people there have had to put up with during that period, I think it reflects remarkable credit on the teachers, parents and the pupils themselves—on all those concerned with running the schools in Northern Ireland. I have written personally to every school in Northern Ireland to thank the teachers for their work during the past three years and I know that it would be the wish of the House to thank them for carrying on in what, especially in certain areas, have been extremely difficult and trying circumstances.
The order which I am asking the House to approve is one of the major changes recommended as a result of the Macrory Committee's reforms of local government in Northern Ireland. I am sure that hon. Members, those who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland and also those who represent constituencies outside Northern Ireland, will be aware of the far-ranging reforms suggested by Sir Patrick Macrory in his paper in 1970, which were accepted by the previous Government in Northern Ireland and which, I think, have had general acceptance by virtually all opinion in the community.
To tell the House how things are running in education in Northern Ireland at the present time, I should explain that public education, apart from university education, which is a separate matter, is administered centrally by the Ministry of Education and locally by eight education authorities. These are the six Northern Ireland county councils, Belfast County Borough Council and, at the present time, the Londonderry Development Commission. The powers and duties of the Ministry of Education and of the local education authorities are determined in the main by the Education Act (Northern Ireland), 1947, and subsequent amending Acts.
Responsibility for the administration of the public library service, with which the order also deals, lies with 16 library authorities. These are the six county councils, Belfast County Borough Council, the Londonderry Development Commission, five borough councils and three urban district councils.
The schools can be divided into three categories: county, voluntary maintained and other voluntary schools. I do not propose to go into the details of these categories. They are extremly complicated. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has mastered this subject in great detail. If anybody asks me questions on the organisation of the schools I shall do my best to answer, but for the present I leave it at that.
It is exceedingly important that there should be close contacts—and I am glad to say they exist—between the schools of all the denominations in Northern Ireland. These are not as close as one would like to see but they are much closer than many people suspect.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the comprehensive system in education which, as he and the House are aware, are not contained in these proposals, would go much further in bringing the communities together?

Mr. Channon: Perhaps I could come on to the point of comprehensive education in a moment or two. All I was saying at this stage was that I have been most impressed by the extent of those contacts between the schools. I have had a list compiled of activities and projects currently shared between the schools of the various denominations. I have been very impressed by the friendliness and co-operation of the teachers in the different kinds of school in arranging joint events. The education service in Northern Ireland has been a shining example of co-operation and good sense during a very difficult time.
Since I have been asked to do so by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), I will deal with comprehensive education. The hon. Member is right in saying that there is nothing in the draft order relating to comprehensive education. I suspect that the question


of comprehensive education will be just as controversial in Northern Ireland as it proved to be in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The advisory council which was set up to advise the Minister of Education on education matters is at present considering the whole question of comprehensive education. A report from the advisory council will be forthcoming, I hope, in the fairly near future. I do not know what that report will contain. When it is received it must be seriously considered and there will have to be discussions with all those responsible before decisions are made.
There is nothing in the order to stop comprehensive education, nor is there anything in it to create it. The question will have to be considered at leisure. The decision which will have to be taken is an extremely important one which will be fraught with complications. The existence of this order will neither retard nor accelerate that matter.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: In this context, does not my hon. Friend agree that the Dixon plan which embraces the Craigavon area and part of County Down represents one of the best forms of comprehensive education?

Mr. Channon: I have studied the Dixon plan; it is a most interesting experiment and there may be a case for further experimentation on differing lines in different parts of Northern Ireland. There does not necessarily have to be a uniform system of secondary education. The area boards can decide to have different experiments. That is for them to determine and not for me or my successors to lay down from the centre. Speaking off the cuff, I might say that the Dixon plan is not an entirely comprehensive system—selection is at 14-plus rather than 11-plus—although there are elements of comprehensivisation in it. I should like to tell my hon. Friend how much I have enjoyed visiting the various schools in Armagh and how impressed I have been both with the county and the voluntary schools which I saw in his constituency and in his town.
I will tell the House why I think it is necessary to change the system. As a result of the recommendations of the Macrory Committee, it was agreed by the previous Northern Ireland Govern-

ment that there should be changes in the structure of local government. Those recommendations were widely welcomed in Northern Ireland and here. The changes were due to come into operation on 1st April next year. My right hon. Friend, when he took up his present duties, had to decide whether it would be right for him to continue with this reform. He took the view, and I am sure it is right, that it would be wrong to delay the reform any longer. Indeed, to have done so would have caused widespread uncertainty and dislocation to many thousands of people who have been preparing for the changes over several years and whose whole futures and careers would have been thrown into complete confusion had a different decision been taken.
The Macrory Committee recommended that education and the public libraries should be a regional service as opposed to a local or district service, but there would have to be some degree of decentralisation and delegation. The committee therefore recommended a two-tier system of administration. The central tier would be the Ministry of Education, which would retain responsibility for policy, finance, law and standards as well as programmes and priorities within the regional, economic and physical plan. The committee recommended that for purposes of local tier administration area boards should be established and the membership of the boards should represent effectively the communities which the boards were to serve. The draft Order in Council gives effect to those proposals.
At the same time, it is a comprehensive measure covering the whole education and libraries systems in Northern Ireland. It repeals virtually all the existing legislation dealing with education and the library services. It has in it a great deal of consolidation. I will comment on those provisions which are not re-enactments or consolidation of existing Northern Ireland law.
Parts I and II of the order provide for the establishment of five area education and library boards. The boards will take over responsibility for the administration of education and public library services in April, 1973. The board areas will be formed by amalgamation of local government districts which were established under the Local Government Boundaries


Act (Northern Ireland), 1971. Hon. Members will see from schedule 1 the boundaries of the boards.
Provisions for membership of the boards are setout in schedule 2. Teachers will be given representation on a board by the appointment of three teachers serving in grant-aided schools or institutions of further education in the area of the board. Forty per cent. of board membership will be allocated to members of district councils in the areas of the boards. The remaining members will represent specific interests such as transferors of voluntary schools, maintained voluntary school authorities and persons appointed by reason of their interest in the services for which the boards are responsible. Three of the persons so appointed must have a special interest in the library service. There is, therefore, effective local involvement in the administration of the service through which public opinion can be brought to bear on the administration, and in the education service that is particularly important.
A new development is the requirement that each board will have a teaching appointments committee. That committee will have the task of bringing greater expertise to bear on the making of senior appointments in schools under the management of the boards and of providing for adequate teacher involvement in these appointments. Towards that end the committee will include two principal teachers in schools under the management of the board in addition to six other board members.
Boards will also have a responsibility in relation to recreational, social, physical, cultural and youth service activities. The order consolidates and rationalises the existing law by bringing together the provision for these activities.
The boards will also be responsible for integrating the already related services of education and libraries so that in addition to its wider functions the library service will operate to the benefit of the education service without being subordinate to it. Whereas at present local authorities are empowered but not required to provide libraries, the order imposes a duty on boards to provide a comprehensive library service.
The order makes provision for development schemes for the library services just

as there are now for primary and secondary education. It will be the responsibility of the board's library committee to prepare these schemes and the committee will also be required to prepare estimates of library expenditure. Premises provided for library purposes will have to conform to standards set out by the Ministry and will be open for inspection by the Ministry. The remaining provisions relating to libraries are based on the comprehensive legislation enacted for England and Wales in 1964.
I would draw attention to article 70 and schedule 11 of the order which provide for the establishment of a Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards. The purpose of the commission is to exercise general oversight of matters connected with recruitment, training and terms and conditions of employment of officers of the boards. Its functions are mainly advisory; executive authority to ensure that advice is taken will rest with the Ministry. One of the commission's functions will be to make recommendations in relation to the appointment and promotion procedure for officers of boards and to this end the commission is empowered to appoint an observer to attend any meetings of a board at which the appointment of officers is being considered.
I emphasise that the order is largely based on the Education Bill which received a Second Reading in Stormont in March this year. The Bill was broadly welcomed, and I think it would be fair to say that there was no attack upon its general provisions, although there were a few points of difficulty which, naturally, I have had examined.
Perhaps the most important issue raised on the occasion of the debate in Stormont was the question of the school leaving age. That issue was raised by almost every hon. Member who spoke on that occasion. As originally drafted, Clause 34 of the Bill—which is article 36 of the order—provided for two school leaving dates, summer and Christmas. At present there are two school leaving dates, spring and summer, and the change to Christmas was originally included in the draft Bill to facilitate apprentice employment as envisaged in the 1970–75 development programme. Strong representations were made that the Christmas date was not educationally acceptable.
I took note of these representations which were made and I authorised the discussions which the Ministry of Education had with interested parties. It will be seen that the draft order now provides for the continuance of the present Easterand summer school leaving dates, except that in 1973 and 1974 there will be special arrangements whereby a limited number of boys may be permitted to leave school at Christmas to take up approved apprentice training.
These arrangements will apply only for the remainder of the current Northern Ireland development programme—that is to say, 1973 and 1974. They will be confined to pupils who in those years attain the age of 16 between 1st September and 31st December and whom the Ministry of Health and Social Services has accepted for entry in the following January to a Government training centre or other training centre approved by the Government for a course of full-time training leading to skilled status in a recognised craft. Such young people will be deemed to have reached the upper limit of compulsory school leaving age at the end of the autumn term and will thus be free to leave school at the beginning of the Christmas holidays. I believe that this compromise has been widely welcomed by Northern Ireland opinion. I hope it will prove to be a satisfactory solution to an extremely difficult problem which gave a great deal of concern when the Education Bill was drafted in Northern Ireland.
I turn to two other points and I do so with some trepidation in the presence of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). However, since the hon. Gentleman raised a number of points on Second Reading of the Education Bill in Stormont, I must now refer to them.
The hon. Gentleman will know that in the order the provision for religious education in schools is substantially the same as in the 1947 Act. This matter has a very long history. It has been influenced on the one hand by the wishes of the transferors' representatives of schools and on the other hand by Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act which prevents the Government of Ireland from passing any law which would give any preference, privilege or advantage on account of religious belief. These provisions have been in operation since 1947 without there having been any serious
criticism of them, but in view of the criticism made by the hon. Gentleman on Second Reading of the Bill in Stormont I have given this matter considerable thought.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear to the House that my criticisms were also expressed by the Leader of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the Leader of the Alliance Party and by a prominent ex-Cabinet Minister, Sir Robert Porter? Therefore, I was not alone in my views.

Mr. Channon: I was not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was standing alone on this matter; if it appeared that I did, I apologise to him. It was merely that he is alone among hon. Members of this House in having voiced these views.
I am advised that little criticism has been voiced about the arrangements during the 24 years which have elapsed since the 1947 Act. In view of that fact, it appeared right to continue with the order in the same way as it was originally drafted. I have had no representations from anyone to the contrary.
I wish to inform the House of one small change in paragraph 2 of article 17, where there is a slight amendment to the Bill. This deals with teachers who wish to be excused from their duties and who, instead of being excused on grounds of religious belief, can now be excused on grounds of conscience. This is a modest improvement. I do not put it forward as a major change but it may be of some help.
The third point of substance which was raised by hon. Members in the debate in Stormont and which has given me a great deal of anxiety is the whole question of the transferors' representatives, and in particular the composition of school management committees and the number of transferors' representatives who are to serve on them. In order to explain what transferors' representatives are, I must go briefly into the history.
Before the Government of Northern Ireland was established there were no local education authorities with any general responsibility for education, although urban districts had been empowered to provide technical education. In 1923 local education authorities were introduced on English lines through counties and county boroughs.


Among other functions the local education authorities were enabled to establish and maintain their own schools and also to manage schools transferred to them by voluntary managers. It was some years before they could get a building programme under way to provide their own schools and the number of voluntary schools transferred to them remained small.
At that time the Roman Catholic Church authorities declined to transfer schools at all and the Protestant churches were almost equally reluctant. The Government reached the conclusion that the major obstacle in the way of transfer of schools was that the voluntary school authorities were not satisfied that after transfer there were adequate safeguards to ensure on the one hand that religious and ethical teachings repugnant to the parents of the pupils would not be imposed upon the pupils in the schools at the wish of the education authority, and on the other hand that religious and ethical teaching which accorded with the view of the parents would be positively provided for the pupils.
To meet this difficulty the Government proposed in legislation in 1930 to protect the character of the education provided for pupils attending particular voluntary schools by ensuring that, if a school was transferred or superseded by a new county school, the transferors of the voluntary school, irrespective of denomination, should have the right to nominate at least half the members of school management committees and that parents should have the right to nominate a further quarter of the members.
In view of the comments made on Second Reading in Stormont, I have discussed this matter with a number of people. I have discussed the problem with the leaders of the main established Protestant Churches and with a wide variety of people. In view of the undertakings given in 1930, and in view of the strong feelings which have been expressed to me, I came to the conclusion that it was right that there should be no change in the 50 per cent. representation accorded to transferors and superseded managers on primary and secondary intermediate school management committees.
Those were the three major issues raised with me during my discussions on the Bill.

Mr. Orme: Has not the Minister also altered the rule about the oath?

Mr. Channon: The legislation dealing with oaths in Northern Ireland is exceedingly complex. It is contained in a number of Statutes and is conflicting and haphazard. My right hon. Friend and I came to the view that, rather than make the situation more haphazard, it would not be right to include the Clause which was originally in the Bill since it would have made the officers of boards subject to the requirement about the taking of an oath. That is the only sense in which the requirement has been changed. This does not affect the position.

Miss Bernadette Devlin: In view of the fact that the members of education boards will be no longer required to take oaths, may we look forward to the prospect of teachers no longer being required to take oaths, because this would help greatly towards the integration of education, especially on the part of teachers?

Mr. Channon: The teachers' oath is not dealt with in this order. It is contained in the Promissory Oaths Act (Northern Ireland), 1923. It would raise an entirely new issue to consider changes, repeals or extensions of that Act at the moment. There are many anomalies in the situation about the oath in Northern Ireland. All that my right hon. Friend and I are doing at present is not to increase the anomalies further by extending the oath to the officers of the new education boards.
Since I have been in Northern Ireland, apart from my other duties I have thought it right to discover whether these proposals in general have widespread support before asking the House to approve the order today, especially in view of the unusual circumstances in which we have to proceed by means of an order. I have discussed the matter with many people—teachers, parents, leaders of the main Protestant churches, leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, education committees, existing local government bodies and many others concerned with and interested in education in the Province. In a reform of this


size obviously there are many points of detail on where there may be differences of opinion. But I have been pleased at the general reception that these proposals have had. I think that the reason for it is the enormous measure of consultation which took place in the drafting of the Bill before it was originally presented to the Northern Ireland Parliament.
It is fair to say that there is no major disagreement about the general principles enshrined in the order from any substantial section of the community, as far as I know. They are widely recognised as an advance by the overwhelming majority of informed opinion in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that discussions about detailed points will be continuing now that we have the order. Will he undertake to consider the representations which are being made by the ATTI about the possibility of teachers being represented on the governing bodies of institutes of further education?

Mr. Channon: Yes, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he intended to raise this point. I have been in touch with the ATTI. I wrote to Mr. Driver several days ago. The points raised by the ATTI are not affected by the order. I have suggested to that body that discussions should take place, and in September or at any rate later this year there will be opportunities for the ATTI to make its points. I am advised that the terms of the order do not preclude any settlement at a later date. The ATTI need not be worried about the passage of the order.
To embark upon a programme of major local government reform takes a great deal of time and heart-searching and raises a great many problems which have to be overcome. In order for this operation to work as smoothly as possible and to be in operation efficiently on 1st April of next year, it is essential that this and other related orders should be passed into law at the earliest possible moment so that people may be appointed, so that contracts may be entered into and so that all the thousand and one matters of detail can be considered so

as to arrange matters efficiently before 1st April of next year.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On page 65 the order, which refers to the appointment of people to the proposed boards, says that a person shall not be considered for appointment if he has been convicted by a court in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the British Isles of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than three months. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are at present offences in Northern Ireland which in ordinary circumstances would not carry prison sentences but which under the mandatory offences automatically result in six months' imprisonment? There are many right-thinking people in the community not engaged in any activity which would tell against their serving on a board who, because of the terrible situation prevailing, are receiving sentences of six months' imprisonment with magistrates actually saying "I will sign an appeal to the Governor of Northern Ireland to get you out of prison", and with the police saying that they will countersign such an appeal. Ought not that paragraph to be looked at again? As it stands, it disqualifies a section of the community which could help in these matters.

Mr. Channon: I note the point which the hon. Member raises. It is not one that has been raised with me before. I shall consider what he says and reply to it when I wind up the debate, assuming that I have leave to do so.
If the order is to be approved, it is essential that it should be approved at the earliest possible date so that education in Northern Ireland next year may be administered as efficiently as possible. I hope, therefore, that the House will allow this draft order to be approved.

12.26 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Minister of State has explained the purposes of the order, the main one being to set up five education and library boards as part of the reorganisation of local government. It is the latter point which justifies the procedure under the Temporary Powers Act where, if it were not for a Friday, this would be a debate lasting one and a half hours. The wide-ranging


matters which arise out of what the hon. Gentleman has said illustrate the problem facing this House if direct rule continues and if there are not appropriate methods devised for this House to deal with matters of this kind. Certainly when we come to the next Session it will not be appropriate to proceed in this manner.
We on this side of the House support the order. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the general agreement that there is in Northern Ireland. I personally acknowledge the extra time that the Government have made available for this matter today because, despite the agreement, there are matters concerning education in Northern Ireland that this House should consider. As a general matter, that is the purpose of this House, and it may be that there are changes which will be made by this Parliament or by some other Parliament in the future.
In recent weeks the hon. Gentleman has assisted me greatly by providing a considerable amount of factual information. There are wide problems concerning education in Northern Ireland about which most of us know very little. I wish to raise a number of them, not in any definitive way but in order that I might play a part in the discussion.
We on this side support the order because it simplifies administration. However, in that connection perhaps I might ask the hon. Gentleman one question. What is the size of population in each board area? Perhaps that is an appropriate matter to deal with after the debate.
We support the order because it associates libraries and education. That is a sensible step to take because the two go closely together. We are glad that the order provides for teacher representation on the area boards. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has raised one aspect of this.
I note that the order makes provision for nursery education. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what it means? Provision is one thing. Money is another. What is the Government's view on nursery education? I presume that, as in this country, there are some forms of nursery education already in Northern Ireland. But what does the order do?
The Minister of State has referred to the valuable change in Article 17(2) where the word "conscience" has replaced the expression "religious belief". We think that that is an excellent idea.
With regard to the declaration of allegiance, of which I have obtained a copy for greater accuracy, the hon. Gentleman has cleared one point; that is, that all that is happening here is that from the order, unlike the Bill, the oath of allegiance for the officers of the board has been removed. In the context of education because it still remains in this form, or something like it, for teachers—we ought to know what it says. It says:
I"—
whatever the name is—
hereby declare that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office"—
no doubt that would be different for a teacher—
to which I am appointed … and that I will render true and faithfully allegiance and service to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her heirs and successors according to law and to Her Government of Northern Ireland.
That latter part is something that we should not even begin to ask a teacher in this country to sign. We do not owe allegiance to a Government of this country. That is the whole point of the political system and this place.
The hon. Gentleman has explained very clearly. He has done the right thing with regard to the Bill. The next step is to get that removed in other parts of Northern Ireland life. While I see the difficulties, when it comes to next Session and the hon. Gentleman has given the name of the Act concerned, it and the Special Powers Act will need to be looked at urgently.
I shall not go into detail about the school leaving date. The hon. Gentleman has made the point. The Northern Ireland Labour Party made the point in Stormont. The hon. Gentleman has changed it, and now the time for leaving school is spring and summer. The hon. Gentleman has explained also that it is a compromise.
This problem is the clash—if that is the right word—between education and training, between apprenticeship and education. The hon. Gentleman has explained that it will end in 1974. I hope that I can assume that after 1974 there will be a uniform leaving date. It must


be in the summer because, except for children who are not involved in examinations and who are in a sense forced to stay to the end of the school year, it means a fragmented last year at school. When people have achieved a certain amount of adulthood and maturity, at almost whatever the leaving age is it is a valuable thing to get the whole of that last year in. It is most important.
I turn now to the question of the transferors and schedule 4(2)(a). I note that it is to be 50 per cent. of the members. The hon. Gentleman has gone into the history of this, from 1930 to 1947 and 1968. He has had discussions. But since those days, particularly since the 1930s and 1947, there are bigger schools, there is a higher school leaving age, there are new schools on new sites with the old schools having become church halls. New churches have been set up where there is no representation. Mr. Vivian Simpson, who was an NILP Member at Stormont, suggested that it would be far more appropriate to have 25 per cent. representation by the transferors.
The view he put forward was that one-quarter should be representatives of the transferors, one-quarter representatives of parents and chosen by an entirely new method, one-eighth representatives of teachers, one-quarter representatives of business, industry or agriculture, and one-eighth representatives of the local district council. I do not stand, and neither would Mr. Simpson, by that precise proportion, but this needs looking at.
I have had a memorandum, as have many right hon. and hon. Members, from the churches, the Presbyterian church, the Methodist church and the Church of Ireland. They make the point about the existing system of transferors representing continuity. I agree. They speak of the calibre of transferors' representation. These members are chosen with regard for their connection with the school. I have no objection to that and can only take the statement as it is given. I am sure that the pastoral link is of value.
They go on to say:
It may be that the time will come when the religious integration in schools in Northern Ireland may be envisaged as a desirable development"—
and so on, I take the spirit in which we received the document. We could not and would not seek to alter it today

because there has been agreement. But it is one thing that ought to be looked at carefully.

Mr. Orme: Would my hon. Friend agree that the problem of the situation is that it gives the minister or priest, or whoever it is, the right to nominate and appoint, as opposed to people being proposed and elected democratically? This is one of the points about which many of us are concerned.

Mr. Rees: There are many problems on this question of transferors which will need to be examined, I hope by the House of Commons or in some other way. There is the question of the performance of church schools educationally. I should like to raise a number of matters here, and, because I have no direct knowledge of it, I am not speaking from experience, which makes a great difficulty.
I raise these matters because I have read with interest a document by Mr. J. M. Malone, published in June, 1972, called "Schools Project in Community Relations". Mr. Malone was seconded for a year from the headship of Orange-field Boys' School to investigate the contribution schools might make to improve community relations. He was responsible to the Ministry of Education. This brief publication is not a report to a committee. There is no longer a committee to which to report. Therefore, it is published in a personal way.
I must make it clear that I am taking what Mr. Malone said as a matter which we ought consider rather than just quoting an article by a Mr. Malone whom I have never met and assuming that he has found the truth. But he was working for the Ministry of Education and it was not just an odd article. He says:
The churches, Protestant as well as Catholic, have had an excessively instituttional interest in education which has manifested itself in concern about management and control, rather than the quality of learning experiences which are offered to children. (The failure during the last 25 years of all the churches to be concerned about the segregation of children on social and intellectual grounds at 11 is relevant.) For many years, for instance, the Protestant churches expected secondary schools to follow the primary school syllabus in Religious Education, which in fact amounted to no more than a list of Old Testament and a list of New Testament passages, and continued to expect 'repetition'. And they have exercised control by an annual 'inspection'


which it would be difficult to justify on either educational or moral grounds.
Inspection is one thing. I have many quarrels with the system of inspection that has grown up over the years. But with inspection of religious education what is one measuring? One cannot measure the end result, until, God willing, 70 years later. But I am on dangerous ground.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in State education—and these schools have been transferred; they are State education schools and no longer Protestant schools—the happy way would be to allow ministers—who are allowed in this building—the clergy of the various churches or people appointed by various churches, to go in and teach their particular type of religious education, and take the whole of religious education out of the hands of teachers and let teachers get on with the secular part of education? Would not that be the happy way to deal with the matter? As this is supposed to be a reforming Bill, why does not the House do a little reforming instead of accepting the rubber stamp Bill printed by the Stormont Government, which never even had a Committee stage?

Mr. Rees: Next time round when we get to this there will be an intresting discussion. I note the hon. Gentleman's point about school chaplains, as opposed to teachers, getting involved.
About the Catholic Church it says—the 'rain falls on the just and on the unjust':
The Catholic Church emphasises that its schools exist not only to ensure that appropriate instruction in religion is given to children, but to enable a Christian atmosphere to pervade all the work and activity of a school. This broader aim…may be little more than a wish, a hope, and aspiration, when set against the reality of schools, with their confused objectives, their differential treatment of pupils according to ability, the rise of sub-cultures which reject the school ethos, and the hatred with which many pupils view their political religious opponents.
It adds
Intolerance is not a product of Catholic schools: indeed Salters in his unpublished research has shown that on the whole Catholic children tend to be more tolerant than Protestant children.
We are not getting the fundamental truth in this article. I am saying that, having

considered Catholic schools, the report says that intolerance does not arise there.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is my hon. Friend able to tell the House about the educational standards achieved in church schools in this country? Their educational standards are sometimes higher than those of county schools and sometimes lower, but there is a good balance between the two. There is little proof in this country that church or religious education has anything but a good effect on the whole of the education system.

Mr. Rees: I lifted what I said out of the Malone paper. This is a question which the House ought to consider. As well, attention ought to be paid to the valuable work done by church schools over-all. Earlier this week I was at the prize-giving day of a church school—a Catholic school—and I can only agree that, as a generality, what my hon. Friend said is true. Now that we are involved in the functions of Northern Ireland, if these matters, are raised they should be discussed not only outside this House but in it.

Miss Devlin: Would my right hon. Friend accept that, while one is criticising the Northern Ireland education system, one is not making attacks on religious schools? But what is not the case in this country but is the case in Northern Ireland is that, whether we like it or not, religion has become a political and prejudicial factor, and, therefore, to continue to treat religious schools in Northern Ireland as though we were talking about religious schools in this country is to ignore the facts. Religion is a prejudicial factor in Northern Ireland, in the same way as colour is in America. We have systematically to set about bringing in a coherent policy for integrated education. My belief is that integrated, comprehensive education is the only way forward, but it is not something that will happen by accident. We must recognise the rôle of religion as a prejudicial factor in Northern Ireland and legislate to remove it.

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend has raised a matter about which I know little, but it is a matter in which I am interested, which is different. It is easy to look from


this side of the water at the problems of Northern Ireland and try to find a simple answer. As I find from my post bag, simple answers cover a variety of matters.
Religious segregation is one part of the problem, but it cannot be the whole of it. I am taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) with whom I have discussed these matters outside the House.
I must accept the various agreements made with the churches. In any event, when one looks back to 1944 and realises the problems in this country of getting agreement, one has to face the fact that there are powerful forces at work here, as there are in Northern Ireland, of which we have to take account. The existing system is not easily swept aside, and nobody here is arguing that is should be.
The Scottish Council of the Labour Party looked at the problem in Scotland where, on the West Coast there are sectarian schools, and it made two recommendations. It said:
We urge the Secretary of State to provide funds for research into the social effects of separate provision in respect of Catholics and non-Catholics.
We urge Universities and research bodies to consider undertaking allied research."
We ought to take this idea further and learn much more about the matter in Northern Ireland. When we refer to Northern Ireland we use the words "majority" and "minority" because we do not want to use the words "Catholic" and "Protestant". Religion is an issue in Northern Ireland, and a little research in a narrow field would give us more information about it.
On the question of comprehensive education, the Minister has explained that, unlike our 1944 Act, there is no general statement—which was the wording of the Act—which spelled out in a longer phrase the Tawney concept of "secondary education for all" which had been worked out over the previous 30 years. I should like to make it clear that I thought that the statement made in the Leeds University Journal on Educational Administration and History by Lord Boyle, who was previously the Secretary of State for Education, summed the matter up. He said:

It now seems reasonable to predict that by 1974 or 1975 in many areas of England and Wales the non-selective transfer from primary or middle school to secondary school will become the norm and what may then surprise us is not that this change has taken place but that its implementation waited so long.
We have heard this morning of the Dickson plan in Armagh, which is not fully comprehensive. There are still grammar schools and selection at 14. My educational tenet is to believe in the comprehensive principle and allow children to get on in a variety of different ways, and implement the principle according to the needs of local areas. It is not worth arguing about different methods now. They ought to be looking at the problem in that way in Northern Ireland when there is talk about being part of the United Kingdom. Taking the words of Lord Boyle, that is what happened here over the years, and we ought to be looking carefully to see that the same thing should happen in Northern Ireland. When I look at the ghetto areas of Belfast—Protestant or Catholic—it seems to me that the comprehensive principle has a social rôle to play in the future.
I know that the matter of religious education was raised at Stormont by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), when he explained the difference between evangelical and ritualistic Protestanism and the relative claims to authorisation of the King James and New England Bibles. All this arises out of article 16(2), because in this order there is to be undenominational religious instruction based on some authoritative version of the Holy Scripture. I should hate to have to teach Christianity based on some authoritative version of the Holy Scripture. It is a pity that it is put in that way, but I realise that this is the result of discussion.

Mr. Channon: If the hon. Gentleman can think of another version that will be more acceptable, he is a better man than I am.

Mr. Rees: I can see the difficulty, particularly when negotiating with people who have strong beliefs.

Mr. Channon: The provision has been in for 24 years, and I understand that it has caused no problem. However, I agree that it is a difficult issue.

Mr. Rees: Perhaps I could leave the matter by simply saying that I hope it will be considered and further discussed, because it is important.
I think that there was ready for publication a report on moral education in the Province, called "We live in Northern Ireland", which went to the Schools Council and the Ministry of Education. It would be a good idea if it were published as part of our wider thinking about education in Northern Ireland.
The Minister has met the point about parents. I ask whether any thought had been given to representation on area boards.
How does Ulster compare with the rest of the United Kingdom in educational expenditure? I have been told—I cannot get the exact figure—that the expenditure per head seems to be below that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I note from my researches of the past day or two that teacher qualification, if graduate studies matter in this fundamental respect, is better in Northern Ireland, and that there is a smaller turnover of staff.
I am glad that libraries go together with schools. Books are the most important liberating force in education. Is the Minister happy with the number of staff available? Is the expenditure on libraries in Northern Ireland greater or less than the norm for the rest of the United Kingdom? I hope that there is no question of censorship on anybody's part of books going into libraries in Northern Ireland.
We learnt last week, in a reply to a Question, of the great attendance record in schools in Northern Ireland—90 per cent. That is remarkable, in the situation, and a tribute to parents, teachers and the LEAs. I add my tribute to their work.
Raising the issues we have raised today is in no sense a criticism of the fundamentally good work that is obviously being done, particularly in the face of the troubles, by schools of all kinds. I only wish that we had far less of the kind of discussion we had after the statement earlier today, and that now that there is direct rule we could spend much more time discussing the sort of topic we are now debating. It is a rewarding subject to consider. Whilst I have questioned what may be done in Northern Ireland, I

know from what little research I have done that I have much to learn from Northern Ireland education, and we could all have very fruitful debates. Let us hope that we have more of them, and not more statements such as we heard earlier.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I share the view of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that it is rewarding to discuss matters like education and libraries. This debate presents us with a hope for a better future in Northern Ireland. However, the disabilities under which the House discusses Ulster affairs makes the significant discussion of education difficult. However much we may talk, whatever views we may express, whatever proposals attract the attention and sympathy of the House, we cannot amend an order. We are powerless to make changes however desirable they may be. Today we are debating education, which all will agree is the mostvital social and community question in Ulster. Yet we suffer the same restrictions as we had when debating the electricity service, as we did last week, or fertilisers, as we did a few weeks ago.
This is not the first time Irish education has been discussed in the House under restrictive procedures. For over a hundred years until 1920, when responsibility was passed to Belfast and Dublin, Irish education could be discussed in the House only on a Motion that the total amount of Vote money should be reduced. John Redmond, the leader of the Irish Nationalist Party, is recorded as having had to do that on two separate occasions to draw attention to certain details of education in Ireland, then the second of the three Kingdoms. Indeed, Parliament has had little influence on education in Ireland since it tended to leave it, as it did other matters, to the Lord Lieutenant of the day.
Perhaps the most noteworthy thing an Irishman can claim for education in Ireland is that a national system was introduced in the Pale around Dublin in 1537, 130 years before Scotland enacted the Parish Schools Act and 330 years before the great English Act of 1870. That was an early beginning, but there was a very slow advance thereafter, for by 1788 there were only 361 parish schools in Ireland and by 1826, when the population topped the 6 million mark.
1½ million more than the combined population of both parts of Ireland today, there were still only 782 schools. Of the 37,000 children in attendance at them, about one-third were Roman Catholics.
Hon. Members will forgive a very short look back. The parish schools led to the nineteenth century's famous Commissioners of Education and eventually to the national schools. These were translated in Ulster, after 1920, into public elementary schools catering for all school age groups. Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church refused to co-operate with the new local education committees, so the only schools which were handed over to the committees were the Protestant schools. The result is that today Northern Ireland has a dual system of education—voluntary schools, for the most part Roman Catholic, and county schools, catering almost exclusively for the Protestant majority.
The Irish education system, both in the Republic and in Northern Ireland, reflects the cultural complexities of the country and the social and political realities. It is a tragic story of a rampant denominationalism. The hon. Member for Leeds, South mentioned religious instruction. I intend to leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to deal with that subject, authorised versions of the Holy Bible and the vexed question of access by the clergy to primary and secondary schools. Other hon. Members, I trust, will deal hopefully with integration and zealously with the comprehensive principle. I hope they will, for I am sympathetic to both concepts.

Mr. Mahon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned John Redmond and his contribution in this House. John Redmond was a man for whom I have the highest possible regard, but it might put the hon. Gentleman's argument into perspective if we went back as far as Daniel O'Connell, a liberator of the Catholic Church, who brought about Catholic emancipation. His interest in education was not limited to the Catholic people. He said in the House in 1827, talking about Liverpool schools, the forebears of public education, long before London and Manchester:
I do not hesitate to say in the presence of the hon. Member for Liverpool, that the

experiment in common education has succeeded there. Will you refuse to the poor populations of other great towns the same advantage?
That does not show any partisanship on the part of Daniel O'Connell.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am delighted to have given the hon. Member an opportunity to quote Daniel O'Connell. Although I have referred briefly to the historical position, I am not going to be tempted into a discussion about early Irish education. Since this Measure has already passed the Second Reading stage at Stormont, I shall confine myself to a number of specific issues.
I am sure that hon. Members, accustomed to the democratic basis of most committees in England and Wales, will be astonished to find that the area boards for education and libraries are to be comprised of persons all of whom are appointed by the Minister. They have to be appointed by somebody, but a close examination of schedule 2 leads me to the conclusion that between 40 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the total membership is not only appointed by the Minister but nominated by him.
We do not know how big in membership the area boards will be. However, we know that both the maintained schools and the transferred schools are to have representatives on the area boards. Looking at the maintained schools' representatives I hope that the order will not operate to prevent the authorities of maintained schools from choosing a person other than a trustee to be a representative on their area board.
Transferors' representatives have had a long and honourable history in Northern Ireland education. They were the persons who established the education system by voluntarily transferring their schools to the education committees. Had they not done so, it is doubtful whether the progress of the last 30 or 40 years would have been possible.
Under the order it is theoretically possible for the transferors' representatives to be one-quarter of the membership of the area board. However, since there is no area in which all the schools have been transferred or are likely to be transferred, that theoretical proposition will never be achieved. I can see no circumstances in which the Roman Catholic Church will transfer its schools to the area boards.
No one seriously objects to the maintained schools being represented on the area boards. These schools receive 80 per cent. capital grant from the Ministry and 100 per cent. of running costs, provided they accept a modest measure of public representation on their governing bodies—the famous or infamous "2 and 4" committees. The "2" refers to the representatives appointed by the education committee and the "4"to the representatives appointed by the Roman church. For the most part the schools are under Roman Catholic management and they are usually referred to as Roman Catholic schools.
Under the order the maintained schools are to get three-quarters of the representation to which they would have been entitled if they had transferred their schools. That must be regarded by the Protestant churches, which voluntarily surrendered their principal interest in education by transferring their schools over 40 years ago, as an over-generous response to intransigence.
The House will be interested to know that in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, the former Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Education, Mr. Benn, who is now the Parliamentary Commissioner for Complaints, stated that 96 per cent. of all expenditure on voluntary schools was met from public funds. That was before 1968, when maintained schools status was introduced with a higherbuilding grant. How in those circumstances the Roman Catholic Church can claim that those schools are its schools is beyond my comprehension. They are almost completely paid for from public money.
I do not think it is prudent either to entrench the voluntary principle by enhancing substantially the amount of public money which is paid to voluntary schools' management committees, or by providing a very generous measure of representation on the area boards. At the very least, surely my hon. Friend would require maintained schools and perhaps even the ordinary voluntary schools to undertake to accept more than one-third public representation on their governing bodies.
Unfortunately, it is often the case that the two public representatives on the

management committees of the maintained schools are nothing more than witnesses with little to contribute to the management of the schools. All too often, they appear to be excluded from all the vital decisions, particularly those in relation to the appointment of teachers. These important matters seem to be dealt with before the management committees actually meet. I should like to think that my hon. Friend would make a special point of examining the complaints which one hears from the public representatives on maintained schools committees that they are not allowed to play their full part in the management of the schools.
I am glad to see that three teachers are to be included on each area board. But I wonder why practising librarians are not also to have their representative. Since they are not mentioned in the order, I presume that it would be open to the Minister, when appointing the three persons with an interest in the library service, to include a professional librarian among the number. They should not be less well treated in this respect than school teachers.
I welcome, too, the proposed teaching appointments committee. This is a new departure and is a response to criticisms made over a number of years that teachers are frequently subject to unprofessional questioning by inexpert appointments panels. One has often heard complaints that questions were posed which appeared to the teacher to have little relevance to the school-room situation. I should like to know what is meant by "senior appointments", to which my hon. Friend referred in his opening speech. Does that include, for example, vice-principals of primary schools or assistant teachers with posts of special responsibility? I assume from Schedule 3—perhaps my hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the proposed appointments committee will not be concerned with ordinary teaching appointments. I would hope, however, that if the scheme is successful it will eventually be extended to include assistant teachers.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Paragraph 2 of Schedule 10, states:
Subject to the provisions of any regulations made by the Ministry, a board may, without advertisement, appoint a teacher to a vacant post …".


Does not my hon. Friend feel that instead of being the rule it should be the exception to the rule, and that the rule should be that all teaching appointments should be advertised?

Mr. Kilfedder: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that matter. It is a matter worthy of consideration. I shall be interested to hear what he has to say if he has the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The quorum arrangements for the teaching appointments committee of one person from each of the four groups could be a difficulty. One person from one group failing to turn up could prevent the Committee from transacting any business. Ill disposed persons could easily arrange a boycott of the meetings. All that would need to happen is for, say, two district councillors to refuse to attend the meeting. The difficulty could be overcome by allowing a quorum of four from only two of the categories rather than from the four groups. An arrangement for substitutes is proposed, but a period of bad weather could leave the committee without a quorum. So that the school management committee cannot usurp the power to appoint, I should prefer to see a requirement to submit three names to the teaching appointments committee if there are more than three applications and all the names if there are three or fewer applications. I have only one comment on the membership of the teaching appointments committee. It would be helpful if either the director of education or one of the assistant education officers could be among the members.
The old term "county school" is to be replaced under the order by the new term "controlled school". I am very disappointed at that change. We had an order on the electricity service, in which the former name of the electricity service in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Electricity Board, was dispensed with and anew name substituted. Here again we have a new name brought into the education system. The term "county school" is a well known and respected term in Northern Ireland, and "controlled school" imputes something less good. The nearest equivalent in Great Britain would be the council school, although I know from my own experience that council schools in many areas in

England have a better teaching record than many independent schools. But names are important, and while voluntary schools are to be allowed to retain their existing name, I see no real reason or justification for changing "county" to "controlled". I would put in a plea for my hon. Friend to have a second look at this matter. I should have thought that the teachers in county schools would be entitled to enjoy the same privilege of status and the honour which comes from a long association with a name which has won respect everywhere in Northern Ireland, the name of "county schools".
When the announcement was made by the Ministry of Education some months ago that another 25 or 30 nursery schools would be built, I do not think anyone realised that they were to be divided along the traditional sectarian lines. I find to my dismay in Article 8 and in schedule 4 of the order that nursery schools, like grammar, primary and secondary schools, are to suffer the same sectarian divisions. One would have hoped that at that tender age, up to the age of six years, the churches would not object to all children being educated together, but apparently that is not to be the case. We can only regret it and I think that most hon. Members in the Chamber today do regret it. I do not know whether the Minister would consider having a round table conference with the heads of the various Churches to see whether a new relationship specially for nursery schools could be hammered out. Surely some measure of desegregation could be achieved.
I also welcome the change in articles 25 and 26. It is long overdue that a child should be examined by a child education psychologist as well as by a medical officer when some question arises about special education treatment and whether it is necessary. It is good to know too that the legislation requires that the basis of the determination shall be the child's physical, intellectual, emotional and social development. I welcome the change because it will result in more flexible attitudes towards dyslexia, the hard of hearing children who are not actually deaf, and the partially sighted children who are not actually blind, all of whom are frequently found in ordinary classes in ordinary schools, sometimes to their disadvantage and sometimes admittedly to their advantage.
I wonder whether the teacher, who knows the child very well, should not also be present at the examination, and perhaps the parent should not be overlooked. I agree, and I think that most people would accept, that the experience for the parents of such children can be emotional and that they naturally tend to interfere, but they should be given an opportunity to attend such an examination.
I should have liked to have seen provision including the Youth Employment Service. Although the Youth Employment Board has been extremely successful in Northern Ireland, it has rather lacked the immediacy of direct and continuous contact with the intermediate, grammar and technical schools. This is a contact which it would be easier to bring about if it were organised on an area board basis.
I think, too, that the real work of the Community Relations Commission and the Ministry of Community Relations is education and there is a sense in which responsibility for community relations should be a part of the functions of the area education boards. The work of the Ministry of Community Relations ought to be absorbed into the Ministry of Education, and I hope that my hon. Friend will look seriously at that suggestion.
With the raising of the school leaving age to 16 we may expect more boys and girls to be stimulated to undertake further education courses. I expect therefore that there will be a demand for financial assistance, and I am glad to see that article 43 makes provision for that. I wonder whether any consideration has been given to the level of financial assistance which is regarded as suitable for boys and girls between the ages of 16 and 18. I presume that the parental contribution criteria will remain unaltered although I am conscious that there is widespread criticism of this. I expect that it will be some time before the general policy decision is taken.
I welcome the proposal to set up a supply teacher pool. One can envisage many circumstances when teachers from a supply pool would be of enormous benefit to the education system. More and more attention is being paid to "in-service training"; and courses usually

require the full attendance of the teacher, so that the availability of a teacher from the pool is very desirable. Perhaps the Minister could say whether voluntary maintained schools are to have their own pool or whether they will be prepared to take teachers from the central pool. There has been difficulty in the past with Roman Catholic voluntary schools preferring to employ teachers of their own faith, teachers from the Eire or Ulster Catholic colleges of education or, secondly, a college of education in Great Britain.
To achieve absolute fairness and impartiality in the appointment of teachers it is essential to devise elaborate and carefully framed provisions, and this is what I think we find in part I of the schedule. But these arrangements, I notice, apply only to teachers in controlled schools. This is a great pity, because the charge of discrimination is made on all sides in Northern Ireland. Should there be a charge of bad administration or discrimination, the complainant can always go to the Parliamentary Commissioner or the Commissioner of Complaints. But this cannot happen if the complainant is dealing with a teaching appointment in a voluntary or maintained school. Not only have those schools not got the elaborate and carefully framed provision set out in the schedule, as an ordinary safeguard imposed on them by Statute, but the Parliamentary Commissioner has no function in relation to them. Thus, there is neither an official nor an unofficial sanction to encourage them towards a fair and impartial method of appointments, and apparently nothing is available to the aggrieved.
The Down County Education Committee has been giving clothing grants to children at school on a generous scale for a number of years. Under the order it becomes the duty of the area board to provide clothing for children, and it will have to get the Minister's approval to its proposals. There is no objection to the grants becoming mandatory, but the difficulty for the area board is in assessing the cost for the payment of the grant. Account has to be taken of the total amount which the family is receiving from State funds, including supplementary benefit and family income supplement. As we all know, the Ministry of


Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland is very skilful and knowledgeable in working out these things, and it has all the information. The case for transferring this responsibility to that Department seems strong.
I deeply regret the decision made a number of years ago—nothing to do with the Minister—to abolish junior technical schools in Northern Ireland. Many of our technically trained managers received their initial training in those schools. It was in the junior technical schools that they aspired to go after their higher national certificates and diplomas, and many of them eventually obtained degrees in technical subjects. The schools were non-sectarian, and there was no question of selection at 11-plus to hinder their progress.
The latest movement among the voluntary grammar and intermediate schools is, I regret to say, to include technical subjects in their curricula. The reason for this is that the Roman Catholic bishops have no control over the technical colleges in Northern Ireland which are non-sectarian and they prefer their students to remain in schools under the control of their church for as long as possible.
If this movement goes unchecked, it will reduce the number of students going to the further education institutions, which are non-sectarian, as I have said; and it could eventually lead to a smaller proportion of children from those voluntary schools gaining admittance to higher national certificates and technical degree courses at the Northern Ireland Polytechnic, or the Ulster College, as it is also called.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to stop the spread of a religious apartheid in education in Ulster. In South Africa the white minority practises racial apartheid to separate itself from the black majority. In Northern Ireland it is, I regret to say the Roman Catholic minority which insists on religious apartheid for its schoolchildren, keeping them separate and distinct from the majority. I would not say that this applies to all members of the Roman Catholic minority but it applies in particular to the church. The Government have taken drastic and dramatic measures in Northern Ireland since 24th March; they have taken away the Stormont

Parliament and imposed a neo-colonial rule. There can be no question of an improvement in community relations in Northern Ireland, which we Unionists want to see, until boys and girls can learn together and play together.
Surely a Government which have suspended Stormont will have the courage and wisdom to eliminate religious apartheid in the Ulster school system? Bus-ing in the United States has assumed an importance which has allowed it to dominate part of the Democratic Party presidential nomination. At least in the United States bus-ing has a justification; it is an attempt to desegregate the schools, to encourage a greater racial mixture.
We have bus-ing in Northern Ireland, of which we hear little in this House. It has been going on since 1947 and costs £1½ million a year and it is getting more expensive all the time. Unlike the United States, however, this bus-ing in Northern Ireland is meant to maintain segregation. Its purpose is to divide the pupils and to separate them. If the Government do not have the courage to move immediately on the question of integrated education in Northern Ireland perhaps at least they will look at this question of school transport. If we imposed stricter control on the use of free transport for this purpose—bus-ing children past a number of other schools to their own church school—then that might go a long way to encourage integration. This is what we all want. This is the real hope for Northern Ireland.
I should like to pay tribute to the directors of education and the staffs of education committees in Northern Ireland, and particularly Mr. Frank Ebbitt, the Direction of Education for County Down. Anyone who survives as a director of education in Northern Ireland has qualities of character and ability above average.[Laughter.] I think that the laughter from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) means that he agrees with me. The director of education has to keep the peace between warring factions and deal with awkward problems of administration at a time of rapid change.
I understand that between 5,000 and 6,000 local government officers have to be redeployed as a result of changes in local government. Many of these will be in education. I wish these people well


in their new jobs and trust that the transition will be a welcome one. If it is any consolation to them, I cannot see the new local government system lasting more than 10 years. There is much too little democratic participation to warrant a longer life than that. This is perhaps something to which they can look forward, along with many other people in Northern Ireland.

1.25 p.m.

Mr. Simon Mahon: After listening to the tragic news this morning from Northern Ireland I said to my self—even though I intervened briefly after the statement by the Secretary of State—that I would not make another speech on Northern Ireland until after I had made an up-to-date visit to that area. While there was a little hilarity from an hon. Member this morning, I felt more like crying than smiling. I listened to some of the pessimistic remarks of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder)——

Mr. Kilfedder: Not pessimistic.

Mr. Mahon: They sounded that at the time. I would rather have listened to the more constructive remarks he has to make about the position in Ireland. I am not knowledgeable about the whole situation there but I know a little about it. If there was the possibility of taking a party of Members to look at the schools in Northern Ireland and to discuss them, it would be beneficial, if not to everyone, then certainly to the hon. Member for Bootle.
The hon. Member for Down, North spoke about the confusion over controlled schools, voluntary schools, county schools, maintained schools, direct grant schools and so on. It is confusing but these are the embellishments of education. Although I support comprehensive education I have never believed that it is possible to bring it about in one fell swoop. All my life my job has been to keep open doors for people and not to close them. There were so many doors closed against the Catholic and the Orange people on Merseyside that it has been incumbent upon people like myself to try to open as many educational doors as we could. When people recommend the closing of certain types of school I am loth to do that quickly.
I would advise the hon. Gentleman to be patient. He mentioned the Scottish system. My father was an educationist and politician and one of the saddest times of his life was when the hierarchy of England and Wales turned down the possibility of going into what was generally called the Scottish system. There were two reasons for that. One was that we always felt that we were financially deprived, and the other was that in Scotland all church schools—I do not like the words "Catholic" or "Protestant"—all voluntary schools received a 100 per cent. grant on capital building and full maintenance.
I was surprised recently when an hon. Member opposite asked me whether voluntary schools in this country received any capital grant. I thought everyone knew we received 80 per cent., and I believe that it is 80 per cent. in Northern Ireland, too. The fact that there is the 80 per cent. grant does not take away the right of recognition from those who built the schools. I have been a manager of different kinds of schools all my life. I feel that the management of schools in Ireland and in this country has been reasonably good.
I do not like to hear it said that the clergy responsible for these schools are indulging in some gerrymandering. Where I do take issue and umbrage is over the remarks of the hon. Gentleman when he seemed to say that all that was wrong was that there was a segregated system of education. If that was all that was wrong and was all that was stopping peace coming to Northern Ireland, would not Cardinal Conway, Dr. Paisley, would not I, would not the hon. Member do this in a morning? Why did the hon. Gentleman not talk about discrimination in housing? Why did he not talk about the discrimination in jobs?

Mr. Kilfedder: If we wanted to discuss discrimination in housing, as the hon. Member alleges, we could take up considerable time in the House, but I do not think that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would allow us to do that. The tragedy is that young children in Northern Ireland believe that children who go to different religious schools are distinct and that they have nothing to do with them. That is the sadness of the situation. Corruption begins at an early age. It does not much matter what happens after the age of 16.

Mr. Mahon: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to discuss segregation in other aspects of society. We would be less than honest, in examining the education position, if we did not examine what happened to children when they left school. I do not agree with the suggestion that Christian education is the trouble. I believe that it is the lack of the application of Christian principles which is causing the trouble in Northern Ireland.
It was at a Catholic school. I was at an elementary school, and an Irish Christian brothers school later. I was not indoctrinated to hate anybody. I joined the British Army, one of five brothers, and we served in the best regiments of the British Army. We wanted to love people all our lives. If I were to apply to my fellow men the things which were taught to me in my religion, I should be a far better man and I would be more tolerant.
Suppose the Government were to accede to the request made by the hon. Gentleman and we had a particular type of secular society. Does anybody say that, in view of what has happened over the last five or six years in our country, with the departure from the Christian principles to which we all adhere, we have very much to be proud about? Despite all the mistakes which Christianity makes and has made, and despite the lack of perfection, I would rather see society develop in that tortuous way than in the way to which the hon. Gentleman and I are opposed.
Suppose we were to get rid of the church schools. What would we put in their place? Would we have a nothingness? Would we create an educational and social vacuum? Catholic and Christian schools have made a positive contribution to progress in this country.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the difficulty could be solved by the clergy of the various denominations going into the schools and teaching the Christian ethic according to their conception? I do not advocate secularism. I believe that the door should be open to all religious bodies in the State schools so that the clergy of the various denominations might go into them and teach religion.

Mr. Mahon: I am delighted by that intervention. May I recommend to the honourable doctor, without patronage, a book which I have with me called "The Crucial Experiment"? It deals with the question of religion in English education from 1827 and was written by an English lecturer at Liverpool University, Dr. Murphy. It deals with the situation which the hon. Gentleman describes. The experiment failed.
I should like to give the history of this matter. In 1827 the Liverpool Corporation decided to do something about the problem and it set up two schools—a North school and a South school. The purpose was to do precisely what the reverend doctor suggests. I should have no objection if it could be done today. I do not say that it would be of help in the immediate situation, with the growth of ecumenism. There is not much difference between us. We in Liverpool have long since forgotten the difference between Orangemen and Catholic. The reverend doctor knows that; he has been there. We live in perfect tranquility. The only difficulty we experience arises on Saturday afternoons when we have to make up our minds between the Liverpool and Everton football clubs. I wish that that was the only question to be decided in the north of Ireland.

Mr. Frank McManus: May I point out to my hon. Friend that he has perhaps lost the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) now that he has started talking about ecumenism, because we all know that the hon. Gentleman is a dedicated opponent of ecumenism in any form?

Mr. Mahon: As is said, there is hope for everybody in the Kingdom of Heaven.
As I have said, schools were set up in the north and south of Liverpool. Children of different religions went to them. It was a bold and crucial experiment. Had it been a success, it would have altered the whole structure and we would perhaps not be talking in the way that we are talking about the establishment of one sort of school or another. The experiment failed because people could not agree.
Since then many years have passed. We are at fault for the fact that we have not been able to agree. I always want


to throw an olive branch to anybody, but it is an indictment of all of us—Catholics, Protestants and people in other parts of the world—that we cannot agree. This is the sort of imperfect world which we have inherited. For anyone to blame the establishment of Catholic schools in the north of Ireland for the segregation of the people is wrong. I have been in schools in this country. We have had our difficulties in this country. But is there any difficulty between a Catholic school in Birmingham or in Liverpool and another school? Of course there is not. We have always been able to live together and to get on with each other.
People in the north of Ireland talk about loyalty. That hurts me as a Catholic, because I wonder whether they are inferring that since I am a Catholic and have an Irish background I am not loyal. Even though my family and ancestors have been in this country for 150 years, I am still Irish and a Catholic. Does anyone suggest that my loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen or to my country is impaired because I am a Catholic? I know many Catholics from the north of Ireland who are loyal, upright people. They have inherited a situation and they have no control of it. They may even hope for a united British Isles with the complete accession of the people of the Republic. But hoping is no good.
I am always prepared to work towards greater unity, and if we can achieve it through the schools, then all the better. But let us not blame the establishment of certain schools for what has happened in adult society.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like when he compares English Roman Catholic schools with those in Northern Ireland. The great problem in Northern Ireland is this. Apart from the religious segregation—to which we must be opposed, which schools encourage, bringing up children within a particular religious sect and teaching them only that religion and not to favour children of opposing religious beliefs—the history books which the children study are very different. I have studied some of the history books with which children in Catholic schools are taught, and they are loaded with republicanism, not with loyal thoughts. That is taught

to the children at a very early age and instilled into them and leads in later life to the sort of emotionalism which is one of the root causes of the present disturbances.

Mr. Mahon: The hon. Member is on the essence of the argument. I am not an historian, as much be apparent to the House on occasions, but I have been told by historians that most of this history is not true. That might be appreciated by people both in the North and in the Republic with their respective opinions and history books, and I would imagine that, with good Irish generosity and imagination, a lot of the things which have been said and written will be understood to be not true. However, there is recent history, and it is true, and readily understandable.
I would like it to be possible for there to be an agreed syllabus, but it can come only through slow and natural growth of favourable opinion among the people in Northern Ireland. Certainly that depends on getting rid of the violence of the moment so that people can sit down together quietly and responsibly in a dignified fashion to discuss these problems. I would like to see changes. I can see no difficulty about little children going to school together. The order itself, on page 18, speaks of religious instruction being given in schools
other than a nursery or special school
but children in nursery and special schools can come together and that is what the order means. It could be arranged between the Churches, but it will have to be a slow and natural growth brought about through an extension of mutual understanding.
Why cannot this take place when children are in different sorts of schools? It has been encouragingly said by the Minister today that there are contacts between the different schools. He said he found those contacts most encouraging, as also he found the figures of school attendances. I have always looked at the encouraging things. It is easy to find depressing things. I set out to find and to say encouraging things. I have spoken long enough, but I would point out that in different parts of the world, America, Holland, and certainly in this country, church schools are not associated with antagonism between people on religious


lines, and to blame the troubles in Northern Ireland on the church schools is to evade the truth about the deep differences which have long existed there. To suggest, as some do, that common schools would work wonders shows lack of understanding. The people who say that there should be common schools must be able to show some reason in the educational process why they would be so successful. I know from long experience that schools are not necessarily a wonder drug, and if they are to exert unifying influence, those responsible for running the common schools would need to be themselves united.

Mr. Kilfedder: The suggestion for integration does not come only from Unionists and my hon. Friends on this side. It came from the hon. Lady for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), who is not here at the moment, but who, in an intervention, said she favoured integration. Would the hon. Member not accept that united approach?

Mr. Mahon: My own party knows of the stand I have taken over a long time, and I have been responsible for Amendments proposed to Education Bills in this House. I have not been speaking of Unionists and Conservatives specifically in Northern Ireland. It is not only Northern Ireland people who are opposed to Catholic schools. There are lots of people in this country whose avowed intention is not only to get rid of Catholic schools but to get rid of Almighty God in schools. That has to be understood. That is the sort of world in which we live. I have been to the Far East and to other parts of the world and I have seen what has happened and what is happening, and I have spoken of this over and over again. I have not been speaking of people belonging to my religion or to the hon. Gentleman's religion. There are in this world people who are opponents of all religion, and there are some people who use parliamentary influence to see that this comes about and who have already made tentative attempts to see no further public money given to the voluntary schools.
I would make this suggestion—I do not know whether the Government will agree with it or not—that they give 100 per cent. grant to the voluntary schools, and in that sense we equate them with the county schools. In my own church we pay 20

per cent. of every bill for building a school. We are grateful to successive Governments for the help which has been given, but all the time we are conscious of the fact that our schools are special schools because we have to make for them a contribution extra to the contributions made by ourselves and our fellow citizens towards education. In Scotland it seems to be all right, but I think that in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland we could go some way further yet in having an equation in finance for the schools. It is not only a matter of money; it is not only that one wants more money; but the making of money available would show a promise of a wider equation between the different schools and those to whom they belong. Why should not we start off on that financial consideration in Northern Ireland?
I think that I have said more than I intended to say, but I think I have made my point that simply to blame the schools system for the differences which there are among the people in Northern Ireland is an exaggeration. Faced with the tragic and dreadful situation we have in Northern Ireland, I would ask the churches and the education authorities to look at the educational position to see what can be done in the immediacy of this dreadful situation to bring the two communities closer together. We can start with the children. Where the parents have failed, where else can we start, except with the cradle

Rev. Ian Paisley: This debate today is of the utmost importance because not only are we shaping the new education system in Northern Ireland but that education system will help to shape the lives of the boys and girls of the present day who will be the men and women of tomorrow. Therefore, it is of vital importance that we discuss this order in all its details.
It is to be greatly regretted that in the present system of the administration of Northern Ireland there is no opportunity for any representative of Northern Ireland in this House to move an Amendment or in some way alter some of the details of the order. He would have to be a very proud Minister indeed who would say that an order of this nature with all its ramifications in education should go through without having regard


to its detail and without opportunity for the House to amend parts of the order as perhaps we would be able to amend details in a Bill. It is in a spirit of hopelessness that we take part in a debate which, when it is all over, will not alter by one iota the shape of things to come in education in Northern Ireland. This is regrettable. There is a spirit of hopefulness also that perhaps the Minister will take cognizance of some of the things that are underscored in the House today so that in future some force may be given to the suggestions that are made.
I fully sympathise with the Minister of State. He is in a difficult situation. He has received a legacy in the form of legislation that must be enacted to ensure that Northern Ireland keeps pace with local government legislation in England and Wales. The legislation arises out of the Macrory Report, but that report was first and foremost an investigation into local government. As the education system of Northern Ireland was tied into a series of county education committees, which were statutory bodies and not just education committees of the county councils and of the County Borough of Belfast, any change in local government necessitated a change in the administration of education.
The Northern Ireland Government failed in its duty by not issuing a White Paper on the subject. If there was to be a drastic change in the education system, surely it was the responsibility of the Government of the day to issue a White Paper outlining the proposals which it had in mind. Instead we had the Bill, which has been transformed into this Order in Council. There are to be massive changes. When those of us who know the education system in Northern Ireland ponder the facts set forth in the Order in Council, we know exactly what those changes are.
Before I deal with the Order in Council, I should like to pay a tribute to parents in Northern Ireland. In answer to a recent Question by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) the Minister gave us the remarkable statistics of school attendance, which should impress every hon. Member. In spite of all the commotion and troubles, the parents have been sending their children to school. I

include in this tribute the teachers. The teaching profession has risen to the full zenith of that honourable profession by encouraging confidence in the pupils attending classes which has resulted in such a high percentage of attendance during this difficult period.
I pay tribute also to the people who have given their time to school management committees and county education authorities. Those of us who know something of their work would be lacking in good manners if we did not pay a public tribute to those people for the time they have given and the zeal they have shown in furthering the interests of education in Northern Ireland.
The history of education in Northern Ireland is different from the history of education in this country, a point which we often fail to understand. Can the Minister tell me of one voluntary primary school that is a Protestant school? In the early days the Northern Ireland Government wanted to set up a Stale system of education. They approached the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the various church bodies which had schools in Northern Ireland and asked whether they would come into this system. As the leaflet which has been distributed by the churches tells us. for a time the Protestant churches resisted, for the simple reason that they thought that if they held out they would get grants for their schools. I might differ from other hon. Members on these benches about this, but I think that if the Roman Catholic Church wants to have its own schools it is entitled to have them, just as any other religious body which wants its own school is perfectly entitled to have it.
But the Roman Catholic Church was wiser than the Protestant Church. When the Protestant churches handed over their schools—and this is an historical fact which is resented by many Protestants today—the Government moved in and gave larger grants for voluntary schools, and the whole system of grants was reorganised. Today there are no really Protestant schools and Roman Catholic schools. There are voluntary primary schools, but I do not know of one voluntary primary school that is a Protestant school. The other schools are State schools which have been handed over and which are run and controlled by the education


committees set up by the State. Voluntary schools which are under what we call "two and four" committees receive only an 80 per cent. grant, but teachers' salaries are paid wholly by the State.
When it was announced in the House that we should be dealing with this subject today, the draft order was not available in the Vote Office. All that was available was the Bill, and many of us had to do our homework on the Bill rather than on the draft order.
Article 14 provides that the transfer of voluntary schools shall be a matter for arrangement between the trustees of the schools. That envisages, perhaps in the future, the handing over of the schools. Will the Minister enlarge on this? The Stormont Minister of Education, Captain Long, when questioned on this, in the usual ministerial style skated upon very thin ice and did not deal with the matter. On transfer will all the liabilities of the schools be taken into account?
In article 16 we come to the most important part of the order, namely that dealing with religious education in schools. I do not wish to lend my voice to the idea of the putting out of any particular piece of religious instruction in the schools but I wish to draw attention to the wording of article 16(7), which says:
Ministers of religion and other suitable persons, including teachers of the school, to whom the parents do not object shall, subject to paragraph (8), be granted reasonable access at convenient times to pupils in any controlled or voluntary schools".
I believe we have there something worth developing in terms of the school system in Northern Ireland. That might be the key in dealing with integrated education. This will not happen overnight. We shall not go to bed tonight and tomorrow wake up to see an integrated system in Northern Ireland. Nor will the Republicans wake up tomorrow and find a united Ireland, certainly not if we have anything to do with the situation. This is a matter which, if fully developed, could lead to integrated education in the fullness of time.
Children who play in the street together are not segregated. Willie plays with Pat and Seamus with James, but when the time comes for them to go to school, instead of the children enjoying the sort of companionship they have been used to, they attend schools which work under entirely different rules the one from

the other. One child will attend a Church school and his companion a State school.
I would not like to see any segregation in the nursery schools and I would oppose any such move with all the vigour at my command. If the Government intend to pursue that line, it will be a course which will bring no blessings upon them. That would be a terrible road to follow in any new system of education.
We must remember that other religions are involved which cannot be put into either the Roman Catholic category or the Protestant category. A number of people have come into Northern Ireland who belong to the other great comparative religions. Is it not right in these circumstances that children should be taught together and that, when the time comes, they should be taught the religious tenets by leaders of their own religion? This would be a happy way out of this difficult problem.
What amazes me is the form of religion which is to be taught. I can understand the Roman Catholic hierarchy saying "In our schools the dogmatic religious teachings of our church will be taught." They have every right to say that, but let us look at what is to be offered in the State schools. I refer to article 16(2):
In a controlled school the religious instruction required by paragraph (1) shall be undenominational religious instruction, that is to say, instruction based upon the holy scriptures according to some authoritative version or versions thereof but excluding instruction as to any tenet distinctive of any particular religious denomination".
The order suggests a form of religion which it is impossible even to comprehend.
Let us take the simple doctrine of the Trinity. There is a denomination known as the Unitarians. They do not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity as a specific doctrine of the Christian religion. To teach Trinitism to them is to seek to teach them a denominational tenet. I absolutely disagree with them, but I would point out that they are as much entitled to say that that is a denominational tenet as somebody else is to say otherwise.
Why should teachers have such an impossible burden imposed on them? How can they teach such a liquorice-allsort, dolly-mixture type of religion which they themselves cannot possibly understand?


No wonder they welcome the fact that a conscience provision is written into the order. I personally welcome that provision, because if I were a teacher I would want nothing to do with any suggestion of trying to give this sort of religious instruction.
The paragraph refers to "some authoritative version". Who is to say what is an authoritative version? Is it to be the Jerusalem Bible, the New English Bible, the Authorised Version, the Revised Standard Version or the Version to Modern Man? Who is to decide? The Government are seeking to include in the order things which it is impossible to teach. Had the Government been a true reforming Government in the matter of education in Northern Ireland, they would have deleted that provision and would have allowed the Ministers of the various denominations to handle these things for themselves.
I do not want to go deeply into matters of theology but there are one or two points I should make. We might consider the bearing of these provisions on the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, for there are certain forms of rationalistic Protestantism which would totally reject that doctrine. Surely one has only to look at this order, to see that it is impossible to teach such undenominational religion. However, it appears that the Government intend to do nothing about the situation and therefore are failing in their duty.
I turn to the appointment of teachers and to the question of their suspension. This is a difficult matter. Some teachers in Northern Ireland have had differences with their school management committees and it has taken two years to clear them. It has meant that for two years the question whether they should be allowed to continue in their profession has hung in the balance. The hiring and firing of teachers is not properly safeguarded in the order. However, I must say that I welcome the safeguards that are already written into it.
I wish to draw attention to schedule 10 to the order, on page 80, paragraph 2 of which says:
Subject to the provisions of any regulations made by the Ministry, a board may, without advertisement, appoint a teacher to a vacant post.

Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the practice of appointing people without advertising the posts has been a great bone of contention.

Mr. Maurice Foley: Can the hon. Gentleman assist us? When he refers to page 80, is he using the authorised version or a different version?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Certainly I am not using the Jerusalem version. This is the authorised version, and the passage to which I have referred appears at the top of the page. I am glad to be able to put the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) on authorised lines.
I think that this should be the exception rather than the rule in regard to teaching appointments. I should have thought that instead of putting right at the beginning
Appointment of principals and certain other teachers in controlled schools",
this should be the exception rather than the rule——

Mr. Channon: In paragraph 2 it is very much the exception rather than the rule, I think.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am afraid that I do not agree. I feel that the only two exceptions are
the school management committee of the school to which the appointment is to be made has given to the board its prior consent
and
the teacher is either a teacher in the school to which the appointment is being made or is a person employed either in a controlled school under the management of the board".
I do not think that that should be the rule in filling a teaching appointment. There could be people outside an area who would want an appointment in a school in the area. Why should such people be debarred from the chance of securing that appointment? That is a vital point. Many people in Northern Ireland believe that the advertising of posts is only a farce and that they have no chance of getting such an appointment. I feel that when we deal with this matter the exception should not be made. It is a very important matter, and the Minister of State cannot get out of it as easily as he imagines.
Another point that I wish to make concerns the transferors. In order to help


the hon. Member for West Bromwich, I ought to say that I begin with schedule 2 which deals with the constitution of the boards. In an intervention earlier I drew attention to the provision on page 65 dealing with the resignation and disqualification of members, and I wish to emphasise what I said about it.
Paragraph 6(l)(c) says:
A person shall be disqualified for being a member of a board or of a committee or sub-committee thereof if … (c) he has within the five years immediately preceding the day of his appointment or at any time thereafter—(i) been convicted by a court in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the British Islands of any offence and ordered to be imprisoned for a period of not less than three months without the option of a fine".
In ordinary circumstances probably it would be useful to write such a provision into an order of this kind. At present, however, we have the Mandatory Sentences Act in force. There are offences in Northern Ireland which if committed in England would result in a small fine but which in Northern Ireland result in an automatic sentence of six months' imprisonment.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: He is trying to clear himself.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) only just escaped as a result of a series of amnesties, otherwise he would have found himself eating porridge in a certain place.
There was a case recently where a magistrate said to a man who appeared before him "I have to send you to prison for six months. But I will now write out a petition to the Governor and you will get out. However, under the Mandatory Offences Act I must put you inside for six months." That is a matter that the Government ought to have borne in mind when they were drafting this provision. On both sides of the political fence there are people with deep convictions who are caught up in the present troubles and who for five years must repent. Only after that will they be allowed to be appointed to an education board. Of course some, like the hon. Member for Belfast, West, will never repent.

Mr. McManus: I am sure that the House is following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. To demonstrate whether he has been consistent, will he say whether he supported or opposed the

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill when it was considered at Stormont?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am happy to answer that. Members of the Opposition at that time made a deal with the Government to allow it through if in return they got another piece of legislation concerning incitement to hatred. I tried to strengthen the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill. I called the bluff of the Government party and I kept the House sitting from 2.30 p.m. until 8 o'clock the following morning.

Mr. Fitt: Is it not a fact that the hon. Gentleman tried to double and in some cases treble the mandatory sentences? Will he say why he opposes this legislation when he refused to go into the Division Lobby when the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill was passing through Stormont?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome the opportunity to do that. Reports of the debates are available in the Library of this House. I said that the Bill would not do what it was supposed to do. I said that it was a foolish Bill and that I intended to move a series of Amendments to double the sentences and thereby to call the bluff of the Government party. The hon. Member for Belfast, West went home to bed, but I continued the argument throughout the night, It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman, having absented himself from Stormont and taken a long holiday, to come here today suggesting that there has been anything inconsistent in my behaviour. I am surprised that he should try to make an issue out of this matter.

Mr. Fitt: But the hon. Gentleman did not vote against the Bill.

Rev Ian Paisley: I voted against the Bill every time I moved an Amendment, which is more than the hon. Member for Belfast, West did. He did not move even one Amendment. He cannot get away with that argument.
I come back to the appointments to those education boards. I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) who says that democratic principles have been superseded. I feel that there ought to be stronger representation on these boards from the district councils. What is more,


the appointment of three teachers to such a board is quite inadequate. It is under-representation to have only three people representing the teaching profession on a board which supervises the education system in an area. I feel that there should be better representation.
I turn to the constitution of the management committees and perhaps I might ask the Minister of State a few pertinent questions. Can he tell us, for example, how many school buildings which were transferred originally are now being used by the education authorities in Northern Ireland? I am not talking about the schools as entities. I am inquiring about the properties that were transferred. Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of these schools were handed back to their original transferors and are now being used for other things connected with the various churches? How many of these transferred schools are now ruins? How many are in the possession of other interests which were not originally connected with education?
Today I find it very hard to believe that it is good for the education system of Northern Ireland that half of every school management committee should represent the original holders of this particular school property which was transferred in the early 1920s. That was a very long time ago. As was said at Stormont, the ghost of the past still has its hand on these schools.
Let me make a criticism of the Protestants who on the education committees represented the transferors' interests. The people who attended the Belfast Education Committee for the appointment of teachers were representatives of the Protestant churches. Their purpose was to see that their particular adherents were appointed to certain jobs. That is a fact. I can illustrate it. I know a gentleman who belongs to a group of people known as Plymouth Brethren. He was trained and he went to the Belfast Education Committee to get a job as a teacher. He was refused, not because he was not qualified but because he did not belong to the Methodist church, the Irish Presbyterian church or the Church of Ireland. It was those churches which had the representation. I do not know how many times that young man was dis-

criminated against by the education committee because of his religion.
Let us make no mistake about it. There will be 50 per cent. representation. Every hon. Member for a Northern Ireland constituency, especially the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), knows something about this problem. But let us not blink it in this House. We are to have 50 per cent. of the representation on every school management committee reflecting one particular denomination. Because these schools were controlled by particular denominations they were not mixed schools but Church of Ireland schools, a very few Methodist schools and many Presbyterian schools. In a district with children of Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, Methodist and other religious denominations attending a school that is the direct descendant from the original transferred school, the management committee will have a 50 per cent. representation of one religious denomination. That is wrong and the House should take cognisance of that.
It is all very well for the churches to hand out a sheet of paper saying that it is essential, that this is a right, that it is not a privilege and so on. When the education system was built, no one envisaged that we should come to the present situation when the structure of the schools would be so radical and totally changed. I am not saying that these people should not be represented. They should be represented, but they should not have a 50 per cent. representation.
In the Stormont House of Commons, a House known for polarisation for years, there was a debate across the whole spectrum of religious thought. I am aware that hon. Members from the Republican Opposition or the minority Opposition were not present at that debate because they had left the House. I was not the only person who said this. Others in the House pointed this out. I give respect to the transferors of these schools. The people of Ulster give respect to them. But they should not have a 50 per cent, representation.

Mr. Fitt: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the hon. Gentleman's case. While not agreeing with him about everything he has said, may I ask whether he could not be interpreted as expressing


something in the nature of sour grapes when he makes an attack on the transferors? By "transferors" I mean the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches and the Church of Ireland interests. They certainly are represented on the Belfast Education Committee in terms the hen. Gentleman has already stated. But his own church was not in existence at the time. It has been only a latter-day sensation in Northern Ireland. Could it not be interpreted that because his church is not represented to the same extent as are the others, he is expressing sour grapes?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am surprised that the hon. Member for Belfast, West should come up with that sort of allegation. In North Antrim I represent the strongest Irish Presbyterian constituency in the whole of Ireland. These are the views expressed to me by ordinary Irish Presbyterians, Church of Ireland people and Methodists that when they go to a school they are immediately faced with this problem. I am talking of a constituency matter. That the hon. Member should drag in a personal note is unbecoming to him. I should have thought that in a debate of this nature he would not have stooped so low as to reach the depths of the guttersnipe.
Coming to the Bill that deals with schools, in regard to the rural technical education dealt with briefly by the Minister of State, it is sad that technical education is being phased out in Northern Ireland. The technical schools did a very good job. In my constituency, Bally-castle technical school closed three years ago, Portrush school closed this year and there is now a question mark over Bally-money technical school. Can the hon. Gentleman say what he has in mind for technical education in Northern Ireland? This matter is troubling many people in rural districts. It seems that technical education has been almost obliterated in certain rural districts.
Another matter is applicants who apply for training as special care teachers. They were sent to train originally at Muckamore Abbey. Then the training course was made available at the polytechnic or the Ulster College of Jordanstown. But the students who completed their course at Muckamore Abbey found themselves at a great disadvantage because

those trained at the new college will be recognised all over the United Kingdom but those who did their training at Muckamore Abbey will be recognised only in Northern Ireland. Because they entered training prior to the courses in the new college, certain advantageous posts which would have been open for them had they been trained in the new college are no longer available to them. Yet those who instruct in the new courses are the same and the curriculum of the new course is the same. Students who entered this course prior to the new college taking it on, although having done the same course under the same tuition, now find themselves at a disadvantage. I hope that the Minister will tell us something about that.
Another problem arises over those who have taken their preliminary examinations and wish to go forward as medical students. There is a great dearth of places in the medical faculties in Northern Ireland, and those who have applied to various colleges in England have found themselves at a great disadvantage, some of them not even being asked to come over for an interview. If we are to have a solid system of primary and secondary school education we must make available places for those who, having completed their courses at the lower schools, wish to go onto university.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I have allowed the hon. Member to make his point and it has been heard. It would be out of order for him in this debate to pursue the question of university education.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry for having transgressed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that I can now come back to order.
What is the use of having sound education in primary and secondary schools if there is no opportunity to channel those students forward to universities? This is important to me, it is important to the people of Northern Ireland and it is important to the welfare of the children of Northern Ireland.
I welcome the opportunity of saying some of the things that I feel reflect grass-roots opinion among the Protestant people in Northern Ireland. I trust that the good things about the order—and


there are many good things about it—will go forward in such a way that the education system of Northern Ireland will be second to none in the United Kingdom.

2.32 p.m.

Mr. Frank McManus: I wish to make only a brief intervention, because the last time I intervened in a debate it caused some confusion in the ranks of my political opponents from Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has made an equally long intervention on this occasion, but nobody on this side of the House has decided to walk out in protest.
There are one or two points which I wish to pick up. The first is about better representation of teachers on the area boards. This was mentioned by the hon. Member, and I agree with him that teachers are under-represented. I speak here with some little experience. I was a teacher—be it good or bad—before I came to the House. I have always felt—and I know that most teachers agree—that teachers are under-represented on the boards as they are now, just as they were on the former local education committees.
In most cases those who were deciding the shape and future of education were totally ignorant of what went on. They were totally ignorant of what it was like to be in a classroom teaching children. I have no doubt about their good intentions, but those who were sitting in judgment on curicula and courses to be followed, and telling teachers what they should and should not do, had not the faintest idea of what it was like to be a teacher. The nearest that they could get to it was their memory of what things were like when they were at school, and in some cases that was 50 years ago. The position has, I am glad to see, changed in that there is to be teacher representation on these boards, but I believe that there are not nearly enough teachers on them.
It is bad enough to have directly elected representatives in charge of education. It is worse when appointees of a Minister or some like person are in charge. Surely to goodness there is a need for practical knowledge and advice. If these boards—which I do not think are

a good idea in the first place—are to function at all they need the expertise and practical knowledge of teachers. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will find ways of increasing the teacher representation on these boards and on any future bodies which might emerge to control or direct the course of education in the different localities.
A minor point arises out of what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). The hon. Member for Antrim, North will probably display his usual hilarity, but the hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to the type of history book used in schools in Northern Ireland and lamented the fact that they were loaded with Republican thoughts. He thinks that it would be better if they were loaded with Loyalist thoughts. That is indicative of the views of at least some of the Unionist representatives here.
My attitude is clear. When I was a teacher, I had a great struggle with the local education authority to allow into the schools history books of all kinds so that we could arrive at a situation in which young people passing through schools would get a balanced view of Irish history. Until recently there were two types of history books—those written by people who thought that Ireland was the best country in the world, and those written by people who thought that England was the best, and never the twain would meet. Recently, however, a better and more objective type of history book has been written. Many seminars have been held—I have attended a number myself—and the improved quality of the history books bodes well for the future.
Nevertheless, I had the greatest difficulty in getting the local education committee to sanction the new history book for the schools in the area. The committee said that the book was too expensive, and found a 101 different ways of putting things off. If the Minister agrees that integration is a good idea—and much has been said about integration—one way in which we can immediately begin integrating the young people of Northern Ireland is by allowing them access to any of the history books that are available and letting them make their own judgment about which is the proper story or which is the story that suits them best.
The vexed question of integration has occupied a good deal of the days debate. Integration is a good thing and I hope that it will come about, but I want to place the argument in its proper context. There are those who take the view, or promote it, that most of the ills of Northern Ireland—this is a favourite Unionist point of view—stem from the fact that it is the Catholic schools which breed rebellion, and, that if only we could get rid of the Catholic-controlled schools we could get rid of the breeding ground for rebellion, and things in Northern Ireland would be happier.
That is nonsense. Those who lay such emphasis on the need for integration and suggest ways in which children could come together and be educated neglect to say that there are two great influences on young people. One is the home, and the other is the school, and most people agree that the home is probably the more influential of the two in the early stages.
The truth of the matter is that it is not the minority's fault, because the minority has never had the power. The Unionists have ruled Northern Ireland for 50 years, and they could have done pretty well what they liked. Their conscious policy was to segregate the communities and erect ghettoes in various areas. What is the point of sending young children to the same school, where they have a chance of better intercourse with each other, when, on leaving school, they return to their ghettoes where the family influence comes into play and when they return to school the following morning they take with them the sectarian feeling which was instilled into them the evening before?
Therefore, an attempt to integrate education quickly would mean transferring the ghetto mentalities into the schools. Heaven help the teachers if that happens ! They have enough problems. The young boys and girls will be repeating to their opponents what their fathers and mothers told them the night before in the ghettos. If we place in its proper context the codswallop often talked about integration, it will be seen that those Unionist politicians who have talked down the years about integration in schools have consciously and studiously followed a policy of segregation in housing, and the one negates the other. What is the point in forcing children to go to school to-

gether if they are forced to live apart for the rest of the time?
The matter was brought into tragic and dramatic focus by what happened in Lenadoon at the weekend. I have information, which I believe to be accurate, that a man called Watson, claiming to be second-in-command of the UDA in Belfast, was at the negotiations over the houses in Lenadoon and said that no Catholics would come into that part of Lenadoon which was predominantly Protestant.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order. Surely it is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to indulge himself on the Lenadoon situation, which has nothing to do with the Order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair was listening to the hon. Gentleman very carefully and was waiting to hear that some children were being taken to school there, or something like that.

Mr. McManus: I was demonstrating, in the most dramatic way that has appeared so far, that the policy of segregation in housing would negate any immediate benefits of integration in education. I was pointing out, when the hon. Gentleman tried to stop me by raising a point of order, that when a man describing himself as the second-in-command of the UDA tells people that the Catholics will not be allowed to live in a Protestant area——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot enter the realms of housing. The debate is about education.

Mr. McManus: I will not contest the Chair's Ruling. I believe I should have good grounds for doing so, but I want to get on. The point is that if education is integrated, which is a good thing, the whole benefit of that good thing will be entirely negatived by the segregated housing policy that has been pursued for 50 years in Northern Ireland.
The second point about integration was made forcibly by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He talked about Protestant schools and Catholic schools; and how there were many Protestant denominations which all seemed to get on fairly well under the State system. It is very good that they can get on so well, but the thing to remember about Catholic


opposition to integration is that, on the pronouncements of the leaders of Stormont, Stormont is a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people. It is not surprising that the Catholic community would not willingly submit entirely to the control of what was, for 50 years, on the admission of its own Prime Ministers and leaders, a Protestant Parliament, a Protestant Government, for a Protestant people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) referred to the oath. The oath is a source of insult, and that is all the use it has. My hon. Friend read out the extravagant terms of the oath, which a teacher in Northern Ireland must sign before he can take up his post. I am certain that only lip service is paid to it. The teacher will carry on in his usual way. The requirement to take the oath is only an attempt to humilitate the person seeking employment. If he is trained to the required standard, that should be enough. No education syllabus requires that a teacher shall be loyal or that he shall owe allegiance to a particular Government, institution or set of circumstances, nor do any of the great doctors and masters of education make that requirement. It has nothing to do with education. Therefore, I ask the Minister to set about removing this nonsense as speedily as possible.
I became a teacher and had to take the oath, but I only signed a piece of paper. I believe that I was supposed to take the Bible in my hand and swear to Almightly God—to take a very solemn oath. I did no such thing, but signed a piece of paper which made absolutely no difference to my political outlook or future political activities. I believe that that is the position of the vast majority of teachers who do not happen to agree with the past systems in Stormont or the existing system.
To remove the obligation to sign the declaration or take the oath of allegiance would merely be to remove an insult to those who have to take it. It does not in conscience or morality bind them in any way. I say to the Minister, "Have done with the farce of the oath." If he can do that in education, where it is clearly ludicrous, the way is open for removing it altogether, thus removing one of the sources of irritation and upset in

Northern Ireland, one of the things that contribute in no small way to the trouble and anguish we have known for the past three years.

2.48 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: This is a Friday afternoon and, as usual on a Friday afternoon, members of the staff of the House have made arrangements to get home a little earlier than usual. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will speak for a reasonable length of time, so that the staff's arrangements will not be upset. I should not like it to be known that when we were debating Northern Ireland matters we kept the House any later than usual at the weekend.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Why not?

Mr. Maginnis: I am only making an appeal.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his remarks about the education facilities in Armagh. I hope that he learnt something during his tour of the various education establishments in the county. County Armagh was a seat of learning when most people in this country were illiterate. Many of the educational facilities there are still unavailable, not only in the rest of Northern Ireland but also in this country.
I should like to raise one parochial point. I have already written to my hon. Friend about the county museum in Armagh, and I wonder whether the matter I raised can be taken care of by the area board.
May I also ask him to tabulate all the amendments to the original Measure which are incorporate in the Order, so that there will be no confusion in the minds of the public about what has taken place. We cannot today change the contents of the order. That can be done only by Ministers, and if my hon. Friend spells out in detail the amendments he has made to the original legislation that will clear up many of the misunderstandings.
A lot has been said by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) about the oath of allegiance. A lot has been said also about the representations of teachers on the various boards. The hon. Member talked about 50 years of Unionist misrule


and a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people. That is a misconception. It was said by only one Prime Minister, and it was said in a different context. If the hon. Gentleman takes a look at the history books, he will discover that the oath of allegiance was taken from an English Act and not a Northern Ireland Act. It was followed in the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. That is a matter which should be cleared up once and for all.

Mr. McManus: Before the hon. Gentleman misleads the House, I ask him whether he is not aware that Lord Brooke borough, who was Prime Minister for 20 years and who lives in the County of Fermanagh, not far from where I live myself, advised his Protestant fellow Unionists not to employ Catholics, because he would not have one about the place. He said things like that on a number of occasions. That is not fiction but fact. It is a statement by a Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, That is what I mean when I talk about a Protestant Parliament.

Mr. Maginnis: People say many things in the heat of debate. If the hon. Gentleman had watched a television broadcast by Lord Brooke borough, he would have heard him admit that in making that statment he made a tragic mistake. Lord Brookeborough said that had it been 20 years later he would not have made that statement. People do change. The late Sir Winston Churchill, who was a great Prime Minister, made many tragic mistakes but he lived to regret them, and correct them. We should pay tribute to Lord Brookeborough for correcting his statement in a television appearance.
I pay tribute not only to the parents but also to the teachers for carrying on in extreme circumstances in Northern Ireland. I hope that the move being made by the new education Minister will be to the benefit of all concerned. We have to learn that the youth of today are the people of tomorrow. We have to look to them to guide us in all our directions in future years, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the world. What we instil into the youth of today will come out in some form in future years. I pay tribute to the teachers who have given their time and talents during the

past three years in trying circumstances to try to maintain a good education system.
There is a case for all types of schools. I have no hard and fast rule on that matter. I was educated at a voluntary school and not in one of the main streams of the Protestant denominations, like the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). It might appear that there is sour grapes on his part because he had no say in the system at the time because the Free Presbyterian Church was not then born.
I was educated at a Quaker school, and perhaps that is why I am more or less a manor peace. The Quaker school was outside the main stream of the Protestant denominations, but we had exactly the same curriculum as any other school. The selection of masters at voluntary schools is perhaps even more stringent than at State schools. We were taught extra subjects and given extra time. I pay tribute to the teachers at the voluntary schools who have given their best in trying circumstances.
Once again I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to tabulate the various changes that he has made in the original Measure so that no misunderstanding will arise in future.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: It is not my intention to delay the House for long. I thank the Minister of State for what he said, in reply to my intervention, about consultation with the ATTI about the points which are of concern to it on the government of colleges.
The closure of Magee University College and the creation of Coleraine University have created a problem west of the Bann about senior institutions of further education, and what will happen to areas west of the Bann. Institutions of that type not only help to give status to an area and immediately serve its people, but generate employment, growth and a better standard of living. I should be obliged if the Minister of State could give some indication of what will happen to institutes of further education which are not of university standard, west of the Bann, and about general policy in rural areas where they have an important part to play, not only as places of education, but as places where it is possible


for people from all parts of the community to meet and mingle. They serve as an important centre of influence.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) indicated the way that minorities cling to a particular situation as a way of protecting themselves from what they regard as a hostile climate. They do so to preserve their identity, to strengthen themselves and declare their own image in a similar way; for example, as people might join the Orange Order, and for exactly the same sort of reasons. Such institutions mean something to them, they represent history and tradition. We have to understand that this attitude exists in both directions. It is understandable that people should want to cling to institutions which help to give them an identity and status.
I look at this issue as a Catholic parent in England, and from the point of view of Catholic education in England, which has some relevance to the situation in Ireland. All my children go to the local primary school, and they will go to a Catholic comprehensive school. They will be educated in the State system in the way we know it in this country. However, it seems to me, as a Catholic, that if we are burdening ourselves with considerable expense to finance schools we must take not a spiritual attitude to that spending but a materialistic attitude, and see whether there is a cost-benefit analysis that one can do of the value of money invested; for example, in schools which become an increasing and heavier burden upon a community of Catholics or any Christians. One must decide whether that money could not be better spent in other directions of apostolic and charitable work.
By insisting on an education which is becoming increasingly expensive and which may often lead to a squandering of an important part of the nation's resources, certainly at the secondary education and further education levels, are we not getting our priorities wrong? Should we not say that, while the money ought to be spent on primary schools and nursery schools, if we are to invest money in something which we claim will give a spiritual return, we should consider the benefit of that spiritual return and whether as Christians in an increasingly un-Christian society we might not get

better results by spending the money elsewhere?

3.0 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: Under the procedure employed to discuss this draft order it would have been possible, because of the take-it-or-leave-it principle which we have to follow, for the Minister to introduce fairly radical and sweeping changes. It is a tribute to his tremendous dedication, following his many discussions, that the order is a genuine account-taking of the views expressed to him. I am deeply appreciative, as is anybody in Northern Ireland who has taken an interest in this matter, of the generous and understanding approach he has adopted to this complicated subject.
As in British politics certain political offices are regarded as political graveyards, so in Northern Ireland traditionally it has been the Ministry of Education which has held that "accolade" through the years. As has been apparent from the debate, there are many different streams of thought in education in Northern Ireland.
I firmly agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) when he expressed his lack of approval for the description "controlled schools". The word "controlled" is a word to which it should be possible to find an alternative. I agree too with my hon. Friend and with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about nursery schools.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North spoke at length on the anomalies resulting from some teaching appointment procedures and he referred especially to the Belfast Education Committee. I had one or two unhappy experiences in this respect, it is true. Where he and I may disagree is that I do not think that it is necessarily the fault of the system. It is the fault of the attitude of some who are members of these committees and who take far too narrow a view of their responsibilities for teaching appointments. It is only the bad appointments that are highlighted, however, and many are absolutely fair and reasonable. Within the framework of the education procedure in Northern Ireland we must strive to get a system which would eradicate these quirks of appointment.
The order stems directly from the recommendations of the Macrory Report. So much of the implementation of that report was dependent upon the existence of a Parliament in Northern Ireland that it seems a little incongrous that we should now be pressing ahead with so much of the consequential legislation when the parent body, so to speak, is in a state of temporary prorogation.
From what my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, I take it that in a sense the order concentrates upon the Macrory aspects and that a major Education Bill for Northern Ireland will come forward in the not too distant future.
I realise that there is danger in entering into discussion of article 16 of the order particularly in the presence of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I am glad that, despite the pressures manifest in the Stormont Second Reading debate, religious education is not to be placed on a non-obligatory basis. Had this pressure been met it would have taken us in Northern Ireland away from the mainstream of religious education practice which operates on this side of the Channel. As the hon. Member pointed out, the versions of the Holy Scriptures which may be used, dealt with in paragraph (2), are ludicrous. Surely it would be possible to insert words such as "a generally accepted version" or something like that to tone down what is at present a fairly unhappy piece of drafting.
I come to the question of the un-denominational religious instruction. Again, is it not possible for some form of agreed syllabus to be drawn up? This may be difficult. I do not know, but I offer it as a thought. We want within the context of this order to try to draw this as clearly as possible and to leave as few loopholes as possible. I am particularly glad that nothing was done to alter the long-standing arrangements about transferors' rights. I would like to say how much I appreciated the assistance I received from Canon Eric Elliott of the Church of Ireland who is an authority in this matter.
In the memorandum produced by the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches of Ireland there is one paragraph which has not, to the best of my knowledge, been quoted, It sums up the situation in which we find ourselves and the value of main-

taining the existing procedures with regard to transferors' rights. It says:
In the history of education in Northern Ireland, nothing is more significant than the way in which the enactment of Transferors' Rights stilled long and bitter controversies and created a climate in which harmony and goowill have been productive of much Rood. Even in the 'troubles' of the past thtree years, the education field is one area of life in Northern Ireland in which there has been no breakdown of harmonious and civilised usage. It would be tragic, indeed, if such an oasis of goodwill in an otherwise arid landscape were to be blighted by ill-judged experiment, however well-meaning.
In the present context of life in Northern Ireland that is a fair and reasonable attitude.
I realise there are problems. A number of months ago—before direct rule—many of us were bombarded by local authorities and teachers' organisations about the suggested change in the school leaving date. Again I am indebted to my hon. Friend for acceding to the educational arguments raised then and ensuring that education reigned supreme over the arguments advanced as a Christmas leaving date was brought in to facilitate apprenticeship schemes.
I wonder whether in this context it would be possible—I have no idea of what the problems may be—to raise the age of admission for apprentices to 17. Someone who claims to know a great deal about these matters, which I do not, told me that such a change would obviate the problems arising over the possibility of a change in the school leaving date.
I come to a subject raised frequently in the debate, integrated education. Some hon. Members may have read the comments last week by a very eminent professor in Queen's University, Belfast, Professor Alwyn Williams, a personal friend of mine, in which he said that Northern Ireland was "an educational Alabama." I dislike emotive phrases but certainly it is the only way to get the breadth of publicity one is seeking in making a genuine and perfectly fair comment about the problems created by segregated education in Northern Ireland.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) said about integration and the influence of the home and school children. However, most children draw their friends from the school which


they attend. They are the people with whom they are in closest touch. So long as we have segregated education, so long will the barriers and the problems which stem there from continue. I think it is generally acknowledged that in the long term one of the surest and best ways of getting the two communities to work and live together is by breaking down the educational barrier. It is extraordinary that for many people in Northern Ireland their first educational contact with a member of a different religious denomination from themselves occurs when they go to university; and inevitably only a small percentage of the youth of the Province go to university. This problem must be tackled realistically.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke somewhat playfully about history books. There is no standard textbook for use in all schools in Northern Ireland for teaching a subject as important as history. Irish people, whether they be from the North or from the South, have almost an obsession with history. It is therefore desirable that the history which people are taught should bear some resemblance to reality rather than to myth. There are very good books dealing with special periods of history, but I have not been able to find a standard textbook for teaching history in general in the schools or one with which children could be taught as being an objective study of the life of the country.
Although the order does not provide for greater integration of schools, I hope that integration will be brought about as a matter of urgency. I realise that, like so many things, it will not work overnight miracles, but there is unanimity on both sides of the House that this problem must be tackled.
I welcome the order and I greatly appreciate the decision of my hon. Friend the Minuister of State not to alter transferrors' rights, which are so valued in Northern Ireland.

3.13 p.m.

Mr. Channon: I have already spoken at considerable length on this matter, so I hope it will not be thought too discourteous of me if I do not speak at length now. If I do not deal with some points which hon. Members have raised, I will write to them.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) for his far too generous tribute to me and for his very co-operative and helpful attitude at all times during our discussions on the order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) raised the question of the name "controlled schools". It is extraordinarily difficult to think of an appropriate name. It would not be appropriate to continue with the name "county schools" because they will not be county schools. Counties will no longer be education authorities. We do not want to call them board schools, because that would seem to be a very unfortunate name. Many people gave a great deal of thought to this issue and "controlled schools" seemed to be the best name which could be devised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South asked whether there could be an agreed syllabus for the teaching of religious education in schools. I understand that the three main Protestant churches are at this moment working together on the possibility of devising an agreed syllabus. I do not know whether that will be possible, but I hope so.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the raising of the age of admission to apprenticeships. That, I think, would cause considerable problems. It has been thought of, but boys who enter apprenticeships at too high an age have found considerable difficulty in obtaining employment in Northern Ireland, and that was a reason why it was decided to make this particular interim arrangement made in the order.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), in his extremely thoughtful speech, raised a whole number of points. I will certainly write to him about them if I cannot deal with them all at the moment. One was the question of nursery education. The provisions for nursery education are virtually identical with those made in the Education Act, 1944, for England and Wales. We wish to expand the provisions for nursery education. Approval was recently given to provide 50 nursery schools in the next five years. This is something to be welcomed. A number of other hon. Members also raised the question whether nursery schools ought to be controlled or voluntary or how they would


be organised. That will be a matter for the people to decide. Certainly no one would be better pleased than I if we could have nursery schools, but not by religious denominations.
On the question of the populations of the area boards I can say that Belfast will have 403,000, the South-Eastern area 293,000, the Southern 284,000, the Western, 229,000 and the North-Eastern 319,000. Those are the approximate figures. I think I am right in saying that the Macrory Report recommended about 225,000 as being the criterion, which is met in some cases, to get the boundaries right.
A great many hon. Members raised the question of integrated education. I understand that, because it is a subject which causes a great deal of interest and a great deal of discussion both in and outside Northern Ireland. I must, of course, make clear what I think is well known to the House; that provisions in the rest of the United Kingdom are not very different in this regard and that if parents wish to send their children to a school of a particular religious background and provided by a religious denomination, those parents in the rest of the United Kingdom have the same rights to do so as exist in Northern Ireland. It would be a very big step indeed, and certainly not one I would wish to take, to remove from parents the right to do that. Perhaps the day will come when integrated education will become part of the education picture in Northern Ireland. It may be that it will in other parts of the United Kingdom, although it is certainly not the case in England or Scotland at present, but if it comes I am sure it will come by consent, by agreement, not by compulsion. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that to proceed by means of compulsion now or at any future time would be disastrous in the political climate which exists in Northern Ireland. We shall have to see how things progress in the future

Mr. Kilfedder: Could my hon. Friend tell me whether in England and Wales, perhaps in Scotland, public money is spent on providing free transport to take children past ordinary State schools to a particular religious or church school under the control of a particular church?

Mr. McNamara: Yes.

Mr. Channon: I think the answer is "Yes". I will get the exact position and let my hon. Friend know, but I am pretty sure the answer is "Yes." I think that sometimes hon. Members do not realise what an enormous percentage of Roman Catholic children in England go to voluntary schools—in this country as well. It is a very high percentage. I do not have the figures in my head, but it is a very high percentage.

Mr. McMaster: Surely it is foreign to our ideas for the employing of teachers that there should be religious discrimination, and that schools should exclude anyone except one who is a member of a particular religion or that teachers should be excluded on a religious basis from schools.

Mr. Channon: I must tell my hon. Friend, who may be interested to learn, that I visited—I was about to say a large number—a certain number of Catholic and Protestant schools, and I found in Catholic schools a proportion of Protestant teachers. I found a number of Protestant teachers in Catholic schools, and a number of Catholic teachers in county schools. The schools are not so exclusive as sometimes the impression is given. There is a certain amount of interchange in these matters, and I think that all of us must work for more integration. That is the way to proceed.

Mr. McNamara: I should like to knock on the head the point made by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). In the United Kingdom any child who travels to a school approved by the local authority beyond two miles from his home gets free transport. Whether he is Catholic, Protestant, black or white does not matter.

Mr. Channon: I thought that was the position and I am glad the hon. Gentleman has confirmed it.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South asked about educational achievements in non-denominational schools. Some are better, some are worse but, as the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Simon Mahon) said, the standard is fairly constant and certainly as high as anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Leeds, South also asked about libraries and their staffing. I understand that close attention is paid to the practice in


the rest of the United Kingdom, so there should not be an enormous difference.
It is not quite true that there are no comprehensive schools in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) will know of the one at Fivemiletown. There are comprehensive schools at Newry and Bushmills, and my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh referred to the partially comprehensive system in Armagh. But I accept that there are comparatively few comprehensive schools in Northern Ireland.
We shall await with interest what the advisory council has to say on comprehensive schools. Were there to be changes in the system, with the enormous number of voluntary grammar schools—not only Catholic voluntary grammar schools—the practical complications would be great, but, these will have to be considered in the future if a decision has to be taken. I note what was said about Lord Boyle's remarks. I shall study them, but I do not think that the hon. Member would expect me to take any action in advance of the report of the advisory council.
The hon. Member for Bootle suggested a visit by hon. Members to Northern Irish schools. Nothing would please me more. Perhaps we should defer it until the autumn as the school holidays have begun in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member remains interested in the idea, nothing would please me more than for such a visit to be arranged in the autumn; I think it would be extremely valuable. A visit to the schools would make a change from the conditions which hon. Members so often see when they vsit Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised several points, some of which were mildly reminiscent of his remarks in the Second Reading debate in Stormont. Those who have had the pleasure of reading what he said then will realise what a powerful contribution he made, and I have taken fully into consideration all he said on that occasion.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked about the dismissal of teachers. Teachers have an express right of appeal to the Ministry and their position is pro-

tected in that way. I must mildly draw swords with the hon. Member on what he said about the appointment of teachers without advertisement and his reading of schedule 10, paragraph 2. The exception is made only when two conditions are satisfied. The first is that the school management committee to which the appointment is to be made has given its consent. The second is that the teacher is a teacher either in the school to which the appointment is being made, or in a controlled school—if we are dealing with controlled schools—under the same management. Non-advertisement is intended to be the exception. It is not reasonable that all positions should be advertised. There must occasionally be scope for promotions within a concern or a transfer of teachers who would otherwise become redundant. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that non-advertisement should be very much the exception rather than the rule. However, I feel that the two qualifications I have outlined are a little deeper than the hon. Member thought.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of instruction in religious education which, he said, should be given by the clergy and not by the teachers. I understand his point of view. There is already a right of access in article 16(7) of the order given to clergymen and other suitable persons if parents so wish. That does not answer the point but at least it is some help.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of technical intermediate colleges. Article 54 makes it a duty for area boards to provide adequate facilities for further education. This imposes a duty on boards to provide technical education sufficient to meet demands. I have no wish to see technical education in any way harmed. I would like to see technical colleges with specialised equipment playing an important part in the education of students of 15 and 16. I have not yet had the opportunity to study in detail the problems relating to technical schools to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I know that there are problems in his constituency and in other parts of Northern Ireland, particularly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus). I should like to look at this matter.
I was then asked by the hon. Gentleman about special care teachers at Muckamore Abbey and I will look at that point. I see no reason why they should be put at a disadvantage, and I will do my best to try to meet the point.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and others raised the question of teacher representation on area boards. I do not believe that such representation is as inadequate as some hon. Members have suggested. For the first time these provisions make it a statutory duty for the Minister to appoint three teachers to the area board. In many ways the Northern Ireland provisions are an advance on the situation in the United Kingdom. In England there is no statutory duty on local education authorities to have teachers on local education committees. Teachers may be co-opted on to these committees but there is no statutory duty for them to be members. Therefore these provisions for Northern Ireland are a great step forward, and I hope that the teachers will regard this as an important advance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh mentioned the question of the Armagh Museum. Museums are not covered by the order, although I am looking at the situation of this museum and its future in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I shall be in touch with my hon. Friend about that matter. I shall see whether I can provide a list of changes from the Bill.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked about institutes of further education. I have every wish to encourage them, and I am particularly interested in the future of the Londonderry Technical College and whether it might be used possibly as a regional college to cater not only for immediate facilities but for a wider region. I hope to meet representatives of the college in the not too distant future and I will bear in mind what has been said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Down, North made an interesting speech in which he put a number of important points. I was glad he mentioned articles 25 and 26, which are a step forward.
I was interested in my hon. Friend's comments about the Youth Employment Service and I will study what he said. This service has a most important

function in Northern Ireland and I understand that it has visited every school in the Province. Every hon. Member will feel great sympathy for the Youth Employment Service which has suffered a most appalling series of bomb outrages. It has been bombed seven times and has had an extremely bad time. I pay tribute to that service for carrying on its activities in a very difficult situation.
My hon. Friend said that there were not sufficient local authority representatives on the area boards. I wonder about that. After all, 40 per cent. is quite a lot. I shall be giving the breakdown figures for a likely board presently. However, the position is not too bad with 40 per cent. of the representatives coming from local authorities. I agree it is very difficult to get the balance right.
My hon. Friend asked about senior appointments. That has not been finally decided. My own guess is that it would be principals to start with and probably vice-principals, and that it it could be extended further if the system proved a success. Certainly I assure my hon. Friend that the supply of teachers will be available to the voluntary maintained schools as well. This matter has been raised with me on a number of occasions. There is nothing in the order to prevent that happening.
My hon. Friend then asked about the professional librarians. They may be appointed to boards but not to the boards actually employing them.
The area boards will have between 30 and 36 members. That is the intention Let us assume that the figure is 36. That will mean 40 per cent. being nominated by district councils; up to 25 per cent. by the transferors' representatives and representatives of the trustees of maintained schools; three teachers; three persons with interests in the public library service; and the remainder persons interested in education and libraries in general. Out of the 36; 14 would be district councillors; a maximum of nine representing the transferors' representatives and trustees of the maintained schools—there would never be the nine; the maximum would be seven or eight—three teachers, three with interests in the library service; and a balance of seven. That is not too bad, I think. The Ministry will have no control over the first category and will accept nominations


for the second. The Ministry's control is a little less than some hon. Members have supposed.
I have referred already to nursery schools. Indeed, I think I have dealt with a great many of the points raised in the debate. Naturally I shall consider any thing else that has been referred to——

Mr. McManus: There is one very important matter which the Minister of State has not got round to mentioning. It may be that it has slipped his memory, or possibly he prefers not to mention it. It concerns the oath.

Mr. Channon: I said earlier that the oath for teachers was governed by different legislation. That is dealt with in the Promissory Oaths Act (Northern Ireland), 1923. It may be that some future Administration will look at the whole question of oaths. It is an extremely complicated and anomalous one. All that I seek to do in this order is not to complicate the situation further. Were we to make the oath in the terms that the hon. Member for Leeds, South read to us a little while ago, the effect would be that all officers of the new area boards would have to swear allegiance to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. One or two might not be very keen to do that. The matter is full of anomalies. All we are doing at the moment is not to add still further to them by including officers of the local boards.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I quite see the point about the wide-ranging nature of oaths, and I am sure that the matter will be considered in the context of special powers. But on the precise question of teachers, while I see the Government's difficulties because of the Temporary Provisions Act and so on, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at it again. He has put right the position of officers. It is a matter of education. If he could see his way to dealing with it next Session, it would be most helpful.

Mr. Channon: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Member for Leeds, South has said about oaths. I am not sure that it would be wise to deal with teachers in isolation. There is a host of other anomalies. I cannot recall them all offhand, but there

are the questions of the Housing Executive and of employees of the Ministry of Agriculture, some of whom have to take the oath while some do not, and so on. It is a very complicated and difficult matter. I shall note the views of hon. Members on the whole question. I hope they will not press me at this moment to go further. I shall bear them in mind.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North challenged me about Protestant voluntary primary schools. I am glad to tell him that I have found a few. He said there were none. Seagoe school, Portadown, is under Church of Ireland management.

Mr. Fitt: That is a very dangerous place at present.

Mr. Channon: I hope that it is not dangerous for the school.
There are a number of other such schools but comparatively few. The hon. Member for Antrim, North also raised the question of the disqualification of members of a board on conviction for various offences. I am sorry to learn about the difficulties that will face such well-qualified people. But this is not something that is my fault. This is a provision of the Local Government Act, 1972, passed by the Northern Ireland Parliament before direct rule arrived. Therefore it would be wholly anomalous to exempt the education boards when under the Local Government Act everyone else would be subject to this provision.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand that it was necessary to include this provision to keep consistency with the rest of the local government reform legislation that had already been passed.
With those answers to some of the points raised in the debate, and as the House recognises the importance of the order to the future of education in Northern Ireland, I hope that hon. Members will now feel disposed to approve the draft order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)

3.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move.
That the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.
This is the second occasion on which the House has been able to discuss the supply requirements for Northern Ireland in 1972–73. On 12th June, when we approved an order covering an amount on account for each Vote, hon. Members were kind enough to accept that I should reply by letter to those points that I was unable to cover in the time left to me in the winding-up of that debate, taking up a number of very interesting and constructive points they raised. That process is now going on, and I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if in some cases they have not yet received letters, although I have written to a number of hon. Members about the points they raised.
Today we have another opportunity to range over the activities of all the Northern Ireland Departments. The order before us covers the remaining amounts detailed in the original Estimates less the £26·3 million deduction which was explained in the White Paper published earlier this year, and which I touched on in our last debate on appropriation. Although these Estimates were, of course, prepared some months back, they do provide a detailed account of the services for which my right hon. Friend is responsible. It would probably be most convenient at this hour, if I made only a short introductory speech and then left the stage clear for hon. Members.
The very size of the sum covered by this order, nearly £253 million, serves to remind us that my right hon. Friend is responsible not only for the political and security problems of Northern Ireland which, alas, catch the headlines so often, but also for a great mass of bread-and-butter administration which attracts less attention but which closely affects the lives of everyone in Northern Ireland and will do so in the future. For instance, total public expenditure—which includes more than supply expenditure—on social

security is running at the rate of £150 million a year, on education at over £100 million a year and on health and welfare at £88 million a year.
Northern Ireland Departments have continued, under my right hon. Friend, to administer these basic and necessary services. They have often had to meet special difficulties arising from violence, disruption and civil disobedience; and, at the higher levels, they have had to absorb new administrative procedures following the arrival of "direct rule" and the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act. In addition to all this, Departments have been working under heavy pressure on the re-organisation of local government—one aspect of which we have discussed today—which goes much further than any re-organisation contemplated for Great Britain. This represents a really major administrative task, and that fact should be recognised.
When I spoke on 12th June I said that the Northern Ireland economy had stood up surprisingly well in 1971 to the difficult times, but that there was cause for anxiety. Since then evidence has appeared to justify our anxiety; the provisional production figures for the first quarter of 1972 show a fall—not a large one, but a distinct fall—so that industrial production is contracting.
As hon. Members are aware, the Government have been examining what further new measures are needed to help tackle the economic problems of Northern Ireland, and particularly the employment problems. It is hoped to make a statement in the next week or so but, meanwhile, the House may like to note, in connection with this order, that the measures to be proposed will inevitably require extra expenditure over and above that covered in this order.
In a sense, therefore, the order provides a further sum on account, since it covers only expenditure foreseen by the former Northern Ireland Government early this year when the Estimates were prepared. Since then there have been pay and price increases, a greatly expanded cost of compensation, a number of measures already introduced by my right hon. Friend and, as I say, there will shortly be a further list of measures. All these will require extra expenditure, and at least one further order.
In commending the order for the approval of the House, I should like to say that I shall take careful note of the points which hon. Members may raise and I shall attempt to answer them either this afternoon, if time permits, or by letter at a later date.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall not detain the House for long. There are a number of general questions and one particular question which I should like to ask the Minister.
On the matter of procedure for dealing with Northern Ireland affairs, I am beginning to think that a White Paper explaining in simple terms the different types of orders with which we have to deal, might be valuable. The first appropriations order was S.I 1972, No. 671. Today we have a draft order. Why was it necessary to adopt a different procedure on the last occasion? It may, of course, have been a matter of urgency to adopt that procedure. I have been looking at the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act,1972, to try to get the matter clear. I presume that because the order is in draft it will have to go to the other place before becoming law.

Mr. David Howell: The last appropriations order was introduced under the urgent procedure, that is to say the order was made and carried into effect, and was then subject to the negative Resolution procedure in the House. This order has been introduced under the normal procedure, and the hon. Gentleman is right in thinking that it will have to go to the other place and be passed before becoming law.
This is not the Finance Bill or the equivalent of the Finance Bill. There will be an order covering the items raised in the Northern Ireland Budget to give effect to those in law. That will come later.

Mr. Rees: Despite the fact that the order has to go to another place it comes into operation straight away, and I am wondering whether, if it comes into operation forthwith—which is the correct term—that means forthwith having been through the other place.
I understand that it is usual for an Order in Council to come into operation

two or three weeks after its making. It has been put to me in this case that because the order relates only to the Ministry of Finance and the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General there is no need for the public to be informed. I should be grateful if the Minister would clear up these matters, because the various orders being brought before us are being dealt with under different procedures, and it is important that we should get things right.
I understand that the issue is about £250 million, and that the order authorises the temporary borrowing of half that sum. But I gather that a very small sum, only about £20 million, is to be borrowed. There is such great difference between £250 million and £20 million that I should like the Minister to explain why it has been thought necessary to use this procedure.
The hon. Gentleman has explained that the first order was a matter of urgency, and was therefore brought forward under the urgency procedure. The fact that the order before us is brought forward under different procedure presumably means that there is not the same urgency. Therefore, has it been examined by the advisory commission? Was it envisaged that the advisory commission should look at this type of order? To what degree is it looking at the various orders that come out of the Department?
I understand that one of the reasons for the order coming forward now, although not under the urgency procedure, is that there is a need for money to deal with aid for criminal injury and damage, as the existing money is running out.
I turn to the question of accountability. There is still a Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland, and I see that in the appropriation accounts moneys are voted to keep him going. Who will he now report to? If we are providing money for his work to continue, he should report to someone. There may be some merit of itself in the Comptroller and Auditor General looking at accounts, but if his work is not reported to anyone it will be done in a sort of limbo.
The Minister has made the point that the moneys raised under the draft orders were originally asked for by the Northern Ireland Government, not by the Secretary


of State. I note in page 3 the following item of £12,000:
For the charge in respect of secret services".
We all know that there are secret services, but secret services for the Government of Northern Ireland seem rather curious.
Normally this sort of procedure for our appropriation accounts in our Parliament leads to a wide-ranging debate, as it should. This is the second such account we have had for Northern Ireland. It would be inappropriate that this method should continue next Session. That is not the right way of going about it. I put no blame on the Government. It arose out of direct rule, but it is certainly something that we shall have to look at. Whether it is appropriate that it should be done by the new committee which is being talked about, although not yet in great depth, I do not know. In general, we shall support the Minister.

3.52 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I apologise for missing the opening of the debate on this order. The item in the appropriations to which I address my remarks is at Class 3, item 2, police services. The sum granted is £11,754,000 and appropriations in aid is £9,000. At a time when Ulster is going through one of its gravest hours, we should all be asking ourselves whether the method which is being used to restore law and order and maintain a state of peacefulness in the Province is the right organisation for that purpose. At a time when so much seems to be placed on the Army and so little is heard of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Ulster Defence Regiment, I find myself obliged to ask, "What is this £11 million for?" After all, it follows so soon after we sanctioned another large sum in this House for police services. What is it going on?
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State kindly took up the remarks in my last speech and sent me a letter, which I received yesterday in which he answers some of the questions which I raised. He knows that I am going to ask him some further questions about that letter.
It is difficult to grasp the gravity of what is going on in Ulster when one is

in London in a cool calm place like the House of Commons. It is difficult to realise that the centre of Londonderry, so I am told, has been devastated. It is unbelievable to any of us to think that blood is running freely so often in so many parts of Northern Ireland. To think that a major military operation has had to be conducted perhaps emphasises the tragic and, one hopes not but fears, the deteriorating situation in the Province.
Therefore, one asks, "What are the security forces doing? Are they the right forces to be doing it?" These are urgent questions and necessitate an answer. I know that the House wants to end its business as soon as possible, but it is relevant for me to quote a leading article which I read in the Daily Telegraph this morning by Mr. T. E. Utley, who is, we would all agree, not only something of an expert on Ulster but takes such an un-jaundiced view because, as we know, his dear wife is a Roman Catholic. He said:
To say that Ulster is moving, at an ever-accelerating pace, towards anarchy is emphatically not to indulge in alarmism. It is to express a literal truth …
That is a grave statement. We have approximately 30,000 men engaged in security operations in the Province, composed of 18,000 soldiers in the Regular Army, more than 8,000 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, about 4,000 or 5,000 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with a further 1,500 in the Ulster Constabulary Reserve. What part is the police being asked to play? Are we seeking, as my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State seemed to suggest from his letter, the Hunt Report's concept of a civilianised police force or, in other words, put to me by a leading officer of the Ulster Constabulary quite recently, the concept of an English "bobby" in a peaceful English county? Or are we aware that just as there are horses for courses, so there are police forces for provinces, and that the police surely must be structured and organised to meet the problems which are relevant to that area and not to some mythical county which those who drew up the Hunt Report saw Ulster to be?
Therefore, my first question is whether the Ulster Constabulary as now constituted is able to do the job which it is required to do. Indeed, I would like my hon. Friend to be kind enough to


explain what that task is. I remind him of a second quotation from Mr. Utley:
It is basic to the concept of civil society, for example, that the authorities can be supposed to be at least trying to catch and convict those who break the law. But this is no longer true in Ulster, except in some remote and metaphysical sense. … The notion of impartial law has not been abandoned, but there is scarcely any possible police action in current circumstances which does not appear to somebody to be grossly partial.
Mr. Utley used the words "police action" I shall suppose for a moment that he meant that and no more.
I think I table am right in saying that the difference between a police force and security forces in a community is that the police operate with the consent of the community and, therefore, have the trust of the community, whereas military security forces are under no such inhibition. They are asked to obey the orders of the Government whether or not they have the consent of the community in which they are operating. We know that they do have that consent in this case because we know that the bulk of Ulster men want to stay in association with this country. But there does seem to be this very important distinction.
It therefore follows that unless one argues that what is going on in Northern Ireland is war—and I dispute that word because it dignifies the terrorists—one has to argue that this is civil disobedience on a grand scale and that we should never have resorted, at least not until we were placed in the most extreme situation, to military force to cope with such disobedience but should have relied on those forces which had the consent and confidence of the community.
Those of us who have lived and worked in Northern Ireland—I count myself fortunate to have been one of them—remember a time when the Province was as peaceful as any other part of the United Kingdom. The police force there operated with very small forces indeed. I remind the House that the figure in 1922 for the establishment of the RUC was to be 3,500, of which, according to Sir Dawson Bates, 1,000 should be Roman Catholic. That force was adequate to maintain a peaceful province.
When I suggested to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State during our

debate on the appropriations that perhaps we should be considering the establishment size of the Ulster Constabulary, he told me that a figure of 5,000 was now being thought of. The Hunt Report seemed to feel that 3,500 was too small but expressed no view about what size the force should be. The figure of 5,000 is not new. It has been around for at least 12 months, if not longer, in Northern Ireland. Therefore my second question, having asked about the rôle of the police, is what is the basis on which it has been decided that the establishment should be 5,000 and what would be the rôle of a police force extended to 5,000 men. After all, we have nearer 30,000 men engaged in security in the Province at the moment. I think I remember hearing it said that more soldiers could have been used to carry out last night's operation than were available. There seems to be a discrepancy and—more serious than that—clearly the emphasis is on soldiers and not on restoring the community's own force to bring law and order back.
There may be some who think that I am being insensitive to what is going on and that to talk about a police force coping with an IRA that has bazookas is ridiculous, but I still hold a faint hope that one day peace will return to Northern Ireland and the Army will not be required to be on the streets and the community will have had its confidence in the police force restored. My remarks are therefore aimed at both the present and future requirements. So I ask how we can know that 5,000 will be enough at a time when we are having to employ nearer 30,000 and not being all that successful.
I do not want to pour scorn on Lord Hunt, because that would be wrong and there is much in his report to commend, but because he saw the situation as he did, he believed in the concept of an unarmed civilianised police force. We know that the police have had to be rearmed to a certain extent since the Hunt Report which was written in 1969 when the sort of situation that we now have could not have been imagined.
But is my hon. Friend satisfied that ·38 pistols and even Walther automatics are of a sufficiently heavy calibre for the police to do the job that they are being asked to do, or even to defend themselves against the sort of attacks that


have been made on them on several occasions? My hon. Friend wrote to me that the Royal Ulster Constabulary had no Shorland armoured cars, although hon. Members will remember that there was an instance when they used at least one, perhaps wrongly—I am not here to judge, but now they have none. I am not sure whether I should be pleased to hear that.
One weekend earlier this year, I went out with one of the RUC special patrols in the streets of Belfast. We used a Land Rover, which is not an armoured car, although it was armoured with that strange plastic netting that is used and we were all rather glad that there was a certain amount of armour. After all, if one meets someone with a self loading rifle or an armolite rifle, one knows that the bullets he fires will go through the ordinary skin of a Land Rover. Are we wise not to let the Royal Ulster Constabulary have some Shorland armoured cars? Perhaps my hon. Friend will say that some of the £11 million is going in these directions, for it is certain that a police force cannot operate within the communty if it does not itself feel secure. Nor is it reasonable for us to put the police at risk unless we have given them adequate protection to feel that they can perform their job no matter what sort of problems they may meet.
The subject of pay was an extraordinary omission from Lord Hunt's Report. It contains not a word about the ordinary pay of the constable in the RUC. Perhaps Lord Hunt was not asked to comment on it. So I will ask: Is a constable in the RUC paid the same as an ordinary police constable in this country, or is he paid more? If he is paid less, is some of this £11 million to be used to improve pay scales? In view of the considerable danger in being in that police force, could we not consider some special form of payment for those in this service in an endeavour to encourage recruits to bring it up to the 5,000 minimum strength? I hope that as a result of my words someone will wonder whether the present establishment is right, or whether the police force should be considerably stronger.
When I went out with the special patrol in Belfast, it was about 10 days before we had direct rule. We went into

the Mountpottinger area of Belfast. I was very impressed by the policemen who looked after me, including an inspector. One of the things that he bemoaned was the fact that in those parts of Belfast, from which the IRA had been pushed out the British Government, or Stormont, were unwilling to allow the civil police to take over control and instead continued to give the Army the predominant position. I brought his query back and asked some of my hon. and right hon. Friends about it but I did not receive an adequate answer.
I cling to the belief, tattered and shattered though it may be, that the Army is still acting in aid of the civil power. It therefore seems strange to me that we do not restore such areas to the civil authority, namely the police force.
I am bound to ask about the effectiveness of the Police Authority. I was reading one of the last debates at Stormont on the Ulster Constabulary and was horrified at the doubts cast from all parts of the Chamber on the effectiveness of this Authority set up under the Hunt Report and in particular on those who constitute it and on just how much contact it had with the ordinary constable on the beat. After all, he is the man who is risking his life.
Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Police Authority is really sufficiently in touch with the police and the problems of the community to be able to make the policeman feel that when it says something it speaks with the feelings of the constable and all those in the Royal Ulster Constabulary behind it?
The police must be put in a position whereby they can quickly take over the dominant rôle in law enforcement whenever that rôle is open to them. They have come in for a great deal of criticism in this House and elsewhere. They have been "reorganised, reshaped and continually pushed around". Those words come from a speech in Stormont. They have suffered considerably in their morale and few high-ranking officers attempt to hide this. If we really believe that Ulster shall remain a part of the United Kingdom until the majority of its people decide that they wish another destiny then we must always be working towards the recapturing of peace and with that the handing back to the civil forces of their task of looking after the community.
This £11 million may already have been earmarked but I hope that my hon. Friend will not just let my remarks blow away on the wind because it is crucial that the Ulster Constabulary should realise that we in this House who are now in supreme authority are aware of the rôle it has played and can play in future and that we are not relegating it to a reserve position with the Army alone expected to do the police job, the security job, the job of peacemaker, of impartial assessor and of controlling a community, which is dangerously near anarchy.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley: I address my remarks to the first paragraph of Clause IX of the Schedule relating to the work in community relations. Inevitably in our debates on Northern Ireland we deal with the immediate effects. Once in a while, we should look back to the cause, and look forward to the means of eliminating causes of conflict. This paragraph is of profound importance in recognising that there is communal strife in the north and that there is an absence of dialogue at the level of what was political leadership in the north at a grass roots level. In this spirit we should consider closely the work which is being done in this respect and look at experiences elsewhere.
Some years ago, at the time of the influx of Commonwealth immigrants into this country, it was felt necessary to establish some kind of machinery to promote community relations, so we established the Community Relations Commission as a separate body in receipt of aid from the Government but with the ability to dispense aid and to support local groups. Throughout England, and in parts of Scotland and Wales, there are local community relations commissions with full time staff whose salaries are partially paid through the national commission and partially through local authorities, which receive financial assistance for their activities. Their job is to create good relations among the diverse elements making up the community.
It is difficult to assess the value of those bodies, but, in the light of experience here, I ask the Under-Secretary why it was found necessary to establish both a Community Relations Commission and

a Ministry of Community Relations in Northern Ireland. What is the difference between them? Do they overlap, or are they meant to do different things? If the Ministry is meant to do something different, may we be told what it is? If legislation passing through Stormont was examined by the Ministry of Community Relations, did it improve community relations or did it maintain and solidify the present intractable situation? If improvement was its rôle and its voice was listened to, I would welcome it. But was it, and is it? The legislation on education was the result of arguments and discussions in the run-up to the preparation of legislation for Stormont. But do we not see the old divisions reflected in the Bill, with no give and no take?
If the Ministry of Community Relations had looked at matters from the point of view of whether what was proposed would help to improve the situation, would it not, as it did in the decision recently taken about nursery schools, have said, "We want schools to be sited, not on a sectarian basis, but in areas where there is a means of creating, not simply for the children, but for their parents, a place for them to meet and talk?" Should not the Ministry of Community Relations be urging common teacher training at primary or secondary school level? Is not this of vital and profound importance in terms of effecting dialogue? It is these modest and small things which make contributions to the long term future of Northern Ireland. I ask these questions with a view to finding out the extent to which this Ministry has a real job to do or whether it is a phantom.
How far can the Community Relations Commission make its proposals for what work should be done through the various Government Departments and for legislation, and does it do so? For instance, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) asked in the previous debate about the extent to which the area boards being established would be seen and would be used as instruments for promoting community relations. Is not this something of profound significance on which one should seize to make sure that this should happen? If we look at the forthcoming legislation, the proposals for the reorganising of local government and


the establishment of 26 local councils, we see that they have very limited powers indeed, but might they not be instruments of profound significance for community relations activities?
In this respect, it is not so much a matter of the volume of money available. It is under £600,000. But comparing that sort of sum provided for consciously building good community relations with that available for dealing with violence, if the Minister considers this work to be of profound importance surely he will see that in the legislation emerging both for the establishment of these area boards and for the reform of local government and local councils, community relations is seen as certainly a major part of the work of area boards, and possibly the dominant part in the activities of the local councils, so that the means will be there to make it possible.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) mentioned an article in the Daily Telegraph this morning referring to the growth of anarchy in Northern Ireland. I wish to touch on a number of detailed individual points which arise under this appropriation order and pinpoint some, and I look forward to a ministerial reply.
Before I do that I want to refer particularly to the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to a question this morning on the referendum. I would remind the House that on 29th June my right hon. Friend said that
it was Her Majesty's Government's intention to invite Parliament to institute a plebiscite on the Border as soon as possible, but which could not be before September."—[Official Report, 29th June, 1972; Vol. 839, c. 1685.]
That was the impression which was left on that occasion, but today I felt my right hon. Friend was saying that conditions were not right in Northern Ireland to proceed with the referendum and that he was basing his argument on the troubled condition of the countryside. If any right hon. Friend is to use that argument I think it would equally apply to the local government elections, but I did not hear him use that argument about them.
My suspicion—I hope I am wrong in this—is that the idea of a plebiscite has

run into opposition in this House from the Labour Party, from the Social and Democratic Labour Party in Northern Ireland and from Mr. Lynch, and that that is the reason which has caused the Government to wobble on the timing of the referendum. I think it would be a very great mistake indeed to go back on what was seen as a firm commitment, and I hope that the Government will think again on this. I do not think they have finally made up their mind and I hope that one's remarks will have some effect in making them think again on it.
I come, as I said I would to a number of detailed points. The appropriation order deals with tourism. I want to ask my hon. Friend about the Bill which is due on tourism. I was told in reply to a Parliamentary Question that a Bill was due on tourism. It is vitally necessary for the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and those engaged in the tourist industry who are working towards getting the ground prepared for the time when there are more peaceful conditions in Northern Ireland that they should know where they stand, and this legislation is therefore vital to them. It would be immensely helpful if my hon. Friend were able to make a statement of intent on the items to be included in the tourist legislation and to make a statement in advance of the legislation so that plans may proceed.
A constituent of mine, Norman McGrath, was shot by the Army on 11th June in the Manor Street area of Old Park. In a reply my hon. Friend said that the police were investigating the incident and that an inquest was to be held. Has he any further statement to make and can he give me any information on when the inquest is to be held?
The IRA is operating a propaganda campaign both in America and in Great Britain, not just against the former Stormont Government and the police but against any form of authority in Northern Ireland. It has made attacks on the Army and on the British Government and their rôle. In reply to a Question on 24th May my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the Government were well aware of the need to counter this type of activity. I hope we shall hear more about that from my hon. Friend.
I turn to the forfeiture of bail when a person does not turn up at his trial. According to a Parliamentary Answer on


15th June, the amount of money liable to forfeiture at that stage was £12,435. None of that money had been collected. About £12,000 of bail money had been forfeited in respect of 46 people who had failed to attend for trial, none of which had been collected. The Government should press on with the collection of that money. People who have entered into bail bonds should not be allowed to evade their responsibility. I am sure the Government will deal with this matter, and I hope we shall hear more about it today.
Many hon. Members representing Belfast constituencies know the distress that has been caused to their constituents by the hooliganism which has occurred in the area of the Belfast City Cemetery. There have been attacks on and damage to gravestones and graves, damage to flowers and the hurling of stones and missiles at mourners at funerals. In reply to a question on 9th June I was assured that security forces were patrolling the area, but my information is that the hooliganism is continuing. I hope that effective measures will be taken to deal with it.
I come to several points relating to my constituency which are covered by the order. My constituency is an area between Shankill Road and Shore Road, the Ardoyne, Crumlin Road, Cliftonville Road and Ligoniel, areas which have had more than their fair share of trouble. These are areas which have become famous, or infamous, over the last couple of years. Yet when the Republicans in 1959 ran a candidate he got only 5,000 votes out of over 70,00. In 1964 the Republicans ran another candidate who received 2,400 votes. My point is that although this is an area which has seen an immense amount of trouble the number of people who were prepared to support the Republican cause in the ballot box on those two occasions was comparatively small.
I emphasise that the rôle of the IRA is first to control and dominate the Catholic areas and secondly to spread from those areas and impose a ring of terror. I have seen this ring of terror spreading in many pars of my constituency, such as in Oldpark Road, Crumlin Road and the Ardoyne, coming from the Old Ardoyne which is a centre

of terrorist activity. Then there is Duncairn Gardens and the terrorist activity coming from the New Lodge Road area. I know how difficult is the task but I ask the Government to bear in mind the problems of these areas which have had very much more than their fair share of trouble.
Directly related to the problem of terrorism is the problem of housing in my constituency. This problem is somewhat different from the housing problems faced by other hon. Members in this House. One big problem which applies equally to Protestants and Catholics is that if they own houses in or near trouble areas they find it difficult and in some cases impossible to sell their houses into which they have put their life savings. I have pressed the Government on other occasions about this matter and I feel that they should look at it more sympathetically. There is an urgent need for the Government to survey the extent of the problem that is faced by people who are unable to sell their houses as a direct result of living in or close to an area of terror.
There are two ways in which the Government could help. The building societies either refuse to give loans in these areas or require the purchaser to put up a very substantial deposit. Therefore, in these special circumstances it would be helpful if the Government could guarantee the building society against loss on a forced resale. I hope the Government will take this suggestion seriously because this is a great problem. The Government could also help by launching a massive programe through the Housing Executive whereby the Housing Executive would be enabled to buy more houses. There has already been some activity by the executive and several hundred houses have been bought in the last few years, but this is nothing compared with the size of the whole problem. The Housing Eexecutive should be encouraged to buy houses and to put tenants into them and thus prevent the problems caused by squatters who take over empty houses. This is something constructive and useful which could be done.
Perhaps I may mention the problem of squatters. As soon as somebody, whether a Protestant or a Catholic, decides to leave an area, because of intimidation or whatever it may be, a squatter breaks


down the door and goes to live in that house. I have one case in my constituency involving a man in his seventies who had a heart attack and eventually obtained a Housing Executive house. He paid the first week's rent but by the time he was ready to move into the house it had been occupied by a squatter. The Minister knows all about this case and there are many similar sad cases.
In a Question on 11th July I asked about Government policy in respect of squatters and I was told by the Undersecretary of State:
Eviction is neither a practicable nor a desirable solution."—[Official Report, 11th July, 1972; Vol. 840, c. 327.]
I know all the difficulties, but the present situation is extremely unsatisfactory and I hope that the Government will make a statement on what they intend to do about squatters. It comes back basically to my original point, which is to hope that the Government will grasp the housing nettle and make more houses available through the Housing Executive and in some way guarantee building society loans. Action along these lines would help to short-circuit the problem. When a person is intimidated out of his house and then finds it almost impossible to sell, under present legislation he appears to have no claim. I hope that this will be looked at in any review of the legislation.
Finally I refer to the Malicious Damage Act and the position where damage is caused to property or persons. We must recognise the immense generosity of the Treasury and of this House in footing the bill for the vast damage which has been done as a result of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland and for making compensation available to those whose person or property has been damaged.
There are two points in this connection that I wish to put to my hon. Friend. The first relates to cash robberies which are not covered by this legislation. There have been a vast number of these robberies and they have occurred at places where cash is accumulated—the bookmaker's shop, the pub, the shop, the garage and the bank. At all places of that sort ready cash is likely to be available. It may be said that insurance policies should cover losses. However, a great many traders have been hit on so many occasions that their insurance com-

panies refuse to cover them any more for cash. I can give examples of bookmakers and publicans who are in this position. I appreciate the difficulties in relation to fraud, for example, but I ask the Government to look at the matter as sympathetically as possible.
The other aspect of this concerns the necessity to speed up and simplify compensation claims under the Malicious Damage Act. Recently I heard about a young boy in my constituency who was beaten up. His glasses were broken and they cost £8 to repair. What is required is a simple procedure by which anyone in that position could have the money refunded without having to go to a solicitor to lodge a claim. In the case to which I have referred, I was in correspondence with Ministers who told me that the only way to deal with a claim for £8 was to go to a solicitor and lodge a claim. In my view, that is not the way to deal with very small claims of this sort.
In reply to a Parliamentary Question on 27th June, my hon. Friend the Minister was extremely helpful about possible methods to speed up and simplify other claims. He referred to the 70 per cent. payment on account in relation to compensation claims. I know that that practice has been adopted in Belfast, and I pay tribute to the legal representatives of local authorities who have had to carry a vast burden as a result. I know the burden that Belfast's town solicitor has had to bear and the way his department has had to be extended. But there are I think other areas of Northern Ireland where the 70 per cent. advance procedure is not operating. I hope that the practice will be introduced more widely.
However, even where the 70 per cent. procedure operates, local authority committees have to meet in order nominally to approve settlements. Their recommendations then have to go before their councils, where the settlements have again to be approved. All this is unnecessary, and everything that can be done to simplify the procedure is to be welcomed.
These are but some of the problems, but they are real problems which the ordinary man in the street faces in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at them.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: Much as I may have disagreed in the past with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), and still do disagree with him on matters of political philosophy, he has drawn attention to the very human problems which beset both communities in Northern Ireland, and he has pointed out the great distress and despair throughout Northern Ireland at present. To that extent I agree with him.
I have long and poignant memories of being elected to this House in 1966, when I sat on the Government side. I tried desperatelythen—this must be agreed by hon. Members now on the Government side of the House—to bring before the House the situation in Northern Ireland as it then was. I was repeatedly told by Mr. Speaker, by the Table Office and by the Officers of the House that Northern Ireland then had a problem, that it was a matter for the Northern Ireland Government to resolve that problem, and that it was not a matter for this House. I knew then quite clearly, and sadly—and, tragically, I have been provedright—that if the House paid more attention to what was happening in Northern Ireland then the position in which we find ourselves today in that part of the United Kingdom would never have developed.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North, with his Unionist colleagues and certainly with the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, bitterly resented the fact that early in 1967 I took to Northern Ireland three of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller)—to see for themselves what I considered to be a serious problem and one which would probably erupt into violence. The Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland, Captain Terence O'Neill at that time, followed by Major Chichester-Clark and, latterly, Mr. Brian Faulkner, bitterly resented this House in any way inquiring into what was happening there. That is why we are here today discussing this appropriations order.
If, during 50 years of self-government in Northern Ireland this House had been able to break down the convention, so

assiduously built up by the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, which precluded this House from looking into what was happening in what was allegedly an integral part of the United Kingdom, I have no hesitation in saying that both communities in Northern Ireland, Catholic and Protestant, Unionists and Nationalists, would not have had to live through the terrible tragedy of the past three or four yearse or face the possible tragedy which may again engulf them.
When the Stormont House of Commons discussed appropriation orders there was no restriction on time. We could have sat there day after day. There was no guillotine. But whatever one said at Stormont in relation to what was happening, one could be certain that the Government there would not change their attitude.
We have had 50 years of one-party Government in Northern Ireland. I remember standing at the Dispatch Box at the Stormont House of Commons trying desperately to put forward the views, hopes, ideals and aspirations of my constituents. But they were all met with the typical attitude of the Unionist Party—arrogance and contempt. It is because of this continued frustration which has been heaped upon the minority community and its representatives year after year, that we have reached the dreadful situation in which we find ourselves.
I recognise that, this being Friday afternoon, of the 630 members of the House there are perhaps 615 who regard the debate as a nuisance. They want to go to their constituencies, and I understand that. They are not very concerned about what is happening in Northern Ireland, but they may be concerned—and if they are I shall find myself in agreement with them—about the number of young British soldiers losing their lives in Northern Ireland. This is a real tragedy that has been heaped upon this House. Since the day when I was first elected to this House I have condemned violence in Northern Ireland, whether it was perpetrated by the IRA, by the British Army, or, as we can now foresee, by the UDA. I have been quite clear in my denunciation of the use of arms.
In 1967 my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Blackley, and Salford, West drew up a memorandum for the


then Home Secretary. They predicted almost word by word what would happen in Northern Ireland, and that prediction was subsequently confirmed by the findings of the Cameron Report. It is with no great credit to myself that I stand here. I wish that I could have been proved wrong.
The order covers a period from 1972 to 1973. In page 2, Class I, we read:
For the salaries of the department of the Prime Minister, the salaries of the Cabinet Secretariat …
and so on. I understood that the Prime Minister's office ceased to exist in March of this year, and that consequently the Secretariat, too, ceased to exist as from then. May we take it that there is still somewhere in the offing in the mind of the Government the faint hope that the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland will be brought back to office at the end of one year, and that he and his Cabinet Secretariat are being kept in existence at the enormous cost of £534,700?
I ask the Government to be realistic. I do not think that there is anyone in Northern Ireland or on this side of the House who honestly believes that the former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland will ever be returned to office. At the moment the Unionist Party is leaderless. I have sympathy with the Unionist Party and the Unionist population, particularly the working-class people, who find themselves in such a situation, but I cannot see why this Estimate, which covers 1972–73, should keep in existence the office of the Prime Minister and his Secretariat.
Class I also provides
For a grant in aid of the Government Hospitality Fund.
One can readily understand to what effect that money will be put. Following the statement today by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I said that he must have been made aware of the speeches made at the 12th July demonstrations, which were ably led by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), and the attacks, both personal and political against him. For what purpose will this money be used? The sum involved is £5,700. Will it be used by the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland? If it is so used, it will not be

in furtherance of the Secretary of State's initiative in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), who is no longer present, made great play of the RUC's being under strength. He said that its strength was about 3,500, and that he hoped that it would be brought up to 5,000 or 6,000. But even if it is increased to 10,000, 20,000 or 30,000, unless it is acceptable to the community in Northern Ireland its numbers are of no account. I understood that he felt the British Government had let down the members of the RUC when they sent the British Army into Northern Ireland in 1969. The fact is that the RUC was not: then acceptable, particularly in the City of Derry and many parts of Belfast. It was obvious that some other force had to be used if there was not to be a descent into community chaos.
Therefore, I blame not the small numbers of the RUC but its composition, and particularly its overall command, which was in the hands of the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Craig, subsequently demoted and discredited. He, more than anyone else in Northern Ireland, led to the discrediting of the RUC.
Whether or not we increase the numbers of that force, it will have to be radically changed to prove acceptable not just to those in Unionist or Nationalist areas but, as an impartial police force, to the whole community. Whatever expenditure may be involved, whatever public relations exercise is indulged in by the Government or their cohorts in Northern Ireland, it will all prove to no avail unless and until that happens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) rightly questioned the charge under Class II in respect of secret services. Over the 10 to 15 years when I was a Member of the Stormont Parliament I questioned the Minister of Finance year after year as to what exactly the charge meant, and how it came about. Great hilarity used to be occasioned each time the question was posed. The Minister would say that the Government were not prepared to answer; that there was no obligation on them to do so. The normal charge until last year was about £8,000. It had remained static over the previous 10 years. I remember telling him then that


with the rise in the cost of living over that period the cost of information must also have increased, and that if we had informers in Northern Ireland, however much we opposed them and their nefarious activities, they were entitled to the rate for the job.
The UDA, the latest illegal force, which seems to have such powers to pressurise and intimidate Ministers, has in its control a dossier of 400 or 500 names of people whom it believes to be Republicans or enemies of the State. It is generally believed in Northern Ireland that members of the Special Branch of the RUC have given information to this illegal association. I can speak with a good deal of certainty, because I know the person who saw the dossier. The feeling in Northern Ireland is that members of the Special Branch have given this information to an illegal force.
The next item is salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Home Affairs. That is one of the most contentious Ministries which has ever existed in Northern Ireland. It is the Ministry which promulgated the notorious Special Powers Act. It was this Ministry which, under Mr. William Craig, Mr. Brian Faulkner and various others, brought about such discontent and disruption within the community in Northern Ireland.
I will not mention any names, but there are still civil servants within the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland whose whole political philosophy has been orientated to keeping the Unionist party in power. They can only see those who are not supporters of the Unionist Party as being enemies of the State. I urge the Minister to give a careful and close look at the civil servants in the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, to see that they are acting as civil servants and not as agents of the Orange Order, the UDA or some other extremist Unionist association.
Class IV deals with hospital services, general health services and expenditure on pensions and allowances. I believe that we have the best hospital service in the United Kingdom. I have said so repeatedly at local government level and at Stormont level. We have a dedicated band of people in Northern Ireland which bears comparison with any other

region in the United Kingdom or the world. I should be reluctant to see any cutback in the financial resources which are given to the hospital services and the welfare services in Northern Ireland.
Turning to Class VIII, the Ministry of Development, I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Belfast, North. It is now generally recognised that housing is a great problem in Northern Ireland for both Catholics and Protestants. The majority of people who have been intimidated out of their homes are Catholic—perhaps 80 per cent. I do not agree with anyone being intimidated out of his home. I hope that will be taken as an honest expression.
There is, however, a great problem among Catholics and Protestants who have left their homes but who have to pay mortgage instalments to building societies for 10, 15 or 20 years. They are finding themselves in extreme financial difficulty. There must be at least 1,000 families, if one includes Catholics and Protestants, in such a position. If they cannot get some form of financial assistance from the Government their houses will be wrecked or vandalised, and they will no longer be units of accommodation. Not only are the former occupants of those houses distressed and in despair, but we may lose units of accommodation which we cannot afford to lose.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this debate stops at half-past Five, and that there are three other speakers, including Front Bench speakers, who want to make their contributions? It would be enormously helpful if the hon. Gentleman brought his speech to a conclusion.

Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have been led to believe that one and a half hours has been allowed on each order. As this is the second order, it does not run out until 7 o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): This order runs out at half-past Five. I propose to suspend the House after that, if the other orders are proceeded with, for as long as I see fit when the time comes.

Mr. McMaster: On a further point of order. I do not wish to delay the House, but on the last occasion when we debated into the night, there were three orders before the House. We disposed of the first two quickly and we were allowed to accumulate the time. That is the precedent which has been set. I should like further advice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is clear that each order can run for an hour and a half after five o'clock. But there is a limit to what the Chair can put up with in physical endurance, and, therefore, I propose at the end of this order to suspend the House if it is desired to have debate on the following orders. If not, we go on.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Opposition are quite prepared, because of the nature of the last two orders, to give them to the Government, and I hope that this may be taken into account as long as we can get the business done in a proper manner.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was because of the view explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) that some of us did not attempt to embarrass the Chair by prolonging the debate on the education order. I was under the impression that time could be accumulated and that we would have to stay over and perhaps not get home to our constituencies until tomorrow.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must apologise to the House. I understand that I said "five o'clock" when I should have said four o'clock. The timing for the orders starts at four o'clock. Therefore, the time for the present order is one and a half hours from four o'clock—that is, until 5.30.

Mr. Molyneaux: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We were led to believe by those who arrange he business of the House that time could be accumulated, and now we are in this difficulty.

Mr. Fitt: I understand the anxiety of hon. Members from Northern Ireland to take part in the debate, which is of great

moment to our constituents. In view of the disquiet which has been voiced, I shall take only another 30 seconds.
Not only is there intimidation in housing in Northen Ireland but there is intimidation in employment as well. We are thus in a very difficult situation, in which people are not only being ordered out of their houses but ordered out of their jobs. This brings great despair to them.
There are many other matters which I had hoped to raise, but in deference to the concern expressed about the time I will now sit down.

4.58 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I recognise the unusual restraint of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), but what my hon. Friends have just underlined in their points of order is without doubt a fact. I am saying this with no criticism of the Chair because I am certain that your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is correct. But the Ulster Unionists in the House—I do not know about other hon. Members—were quite definitely led to believe that it would be possible to accumulate time today.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made it plain on 6th July, when he said:
I confirm that we intend to table the orders in such a way as to allow maximum time for debate for the particularly important order on education to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. He is also right to say that the House could go on until 5.30 p.m. on that day, and, in certain circumstances, the House could go on later."—[Official Report, 6th July, 1972: Vol. 840, c. 750.]
We took from that statement that if we restrained ourselves on the earlier orders we would have an opportunity for a full debate on the later orders. In other words, it was said to us—if not absolutely publicly, then intimated to us in private—that this would be an open-ended debate.
Therefore, I most strongly protest to the Government and those who manage the Government's business that this is an appalling way to treat the representatives of Northern Ireland at a time when our Province is breaking down into such anarchy and disorder, and when there is no local Parliament in which we can debate these great issues. To be treated with such gross contempt is difficult for


us to stomach. Because time must be left for the Minister to wind up, we now have only a few minutes left. Many of my hon. Friends are still waiting to speak in this debate, but they will not have a chance to do so.
I am not proposing to do what I would normally do, to address myself as constructively as possible to the debate, following the pattern of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). I can only say to the House that what we are doing in the House of Commons today is totally irrelevant to what is happening on the ground in Northern Ireland.
Today we have debated an order on education. Normally, it would have been a Bill at Stormont, where it would have had full parliamentary discussion. It would have been dealt with in a calm and orderly manner. Now the people at home in Ulster treat it as a total irrelevance. They ask "What is the use of passing laws in the House of Commons if the Government fail to produce the one requirement upon which all law rests; namely, that the Queen's peace shall be established in the land?". That is not being done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) talked about the pleasant days to come, perhaps, when the police would be reintroduced in a proper police rôle on the streets. Everyone hopes that that "some time" will come about. It is not the situation now. The situation now is one of almost total anarchy. It is a situation in which nobody has any confidence whatever in Her Majesty's Government and the representatives of Her Majesty's Government, the Secretary of State.
The reason is that last Friday the Secretary of State sat down with the murderers and the gunmen. One can understand the desire of a humane and decent man to do anything to save human life. But the total incomprehension displayed by that action is difficult to explain. The fact that the thing was concealed and came out only because the others disclosed the facts—because the IRA let him down—is one factor, but the very fact that he had said in advance that he did not intend to treat with gunmen and that he then sat down with gunmen means that the Secretary of State

himself, upon whom the whole edifice now depends, has lost any possibility whatever that I can find of regaining the confidence of the majority of people in Northern Ireland. That is a terrible state of affairs to have come about. I would most willingly set about trying to restore the confidence of the majority if I thought that there was the slightest hope, but at present there is not.
That is why these debates on these orders strike the people in Ulster as absolutely and totally unrealistic. They will not become realistic, and no question of sitting to discuss legislation will become realistic, until order is restored along with some kind of respect of the law. If respect for the basic law has disappeared, respect for all other law is at a discount. There is not the least bit of use this House, quietly, in this calm atmosphere, debating laws for Northern Ireland if the basic law is not there in the first place. If Her Majesty's writ does not run, nothing that Her Majesty's Parliament can do in enacting laws will have the slightest effect on Northern Ireland.
That is really all I have to say to the House on this order. The problem is one of restoring confidence. I have said in the House that I thought the new initiative was an act of folly. I thought the removal of the Parliament of Northern Ireland for the time being was a recipe for disaster, and I said so at the time. I have pointed to the fact that the Government's policy, well-meaning though it may have been, was based upon a delusion. I said that it would be bound to cause a slide into anarchy and disaster.
I am in no way pleased that events are showing that I was right. I would dearly like to find some way out of the present difficulty without more bloodshed and violence but I cannot see a way. The problem is to judge what is the wisest course at any time in history. There sometimes comes a time when there is a simple choice between enforcing law by using the forces of the Crown or not doing so.
If the latter course is taken, then more lives will be lost in the long run, there will be more agony and misery, more homelessness will be created, more bereavement. We have already seen something approaching 450 people killed since all this started. A few casualties at the beginning would have prevented all that loss


of life and these three years of misery—if someone had grasped the nettle at the right time. I am terribly afraid that it is almost too late. This is the only message I can give to the House today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Molyneaux.

Mr. Evelyn King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask your guidance. We have, naturally, had eloquent speeches from Irish Members today but I want to submit to you that this is not only an Irish dispute and that English soldiers are dying every day. Representatives of English soldiers, of the Dorset Regiment, who have given their lives in this dispute, should also have a right to be heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the Chair has to call whom it thinks best to call.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Because of the severe limitation of time I want to raise only one point. I cannot understand why any mention of electricity has been omitted from the order, under the head "Ministry of Development." In the past few weeks many of my constituents have received quarterly bills from the Northern Ireland Electricity Board containing a surcharge of around 5 per cent. They have made inquiries but have not had satisfactory replies. In one case they were told by a local office that the surcharge was necessary because of the loss of revenue incurred in the "no-go" areas. Many of my constituents are, naturally, withholding payment until they have a satisfactory explanation, and it is important that that explanation should be given to this House.
If I appeared a little impatient earlier today it may possibly result from having had the experience of being shot at, without any ill-effects, earlier in the week. It may also result from the knowledge that many people will die in Northern Ireland before this House meets again on Monday. It probably also results from the knowledge that there will not be any great change in attitude in this House when we do meet again on Monday. I do not belittle the efforts of my hon. Friend on the Front Bench to preserve what is termed in the Government of Ireland Act "the peace, order and the

good government of Northern Ireland" but all of us in touch with reality know perfectly well that Government in Northern Ireland is rapidly breaking down, not only in the no-go areas but in piecemeal fashion throughout the Province. As I travel back to my constituency tonight and consider what has been said and done, or not done, here in this House, I shall be trying to decide whether there is any point in my returning.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. David Howell: I think that in the minutes which remain it would be convenient for the House if I were to attempt to answer as many as possible of the points which have been raised on the order. As I said at the beginning, I will gladly answer by letter at a later date those points which I am not able to take up or to which I cannot provide sufficiently full answers.
First, I wish to clear up a point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). The order becomes effective the moment that it is approved by the other place. It is a draft order which must be approved by this House and the other place. It has been possible to do it without invoking the urgent procedure in the sense that the money is not needed for appropriation for the Northern Ireland Exchequer and for the business of government to be carried on. It has been possible to do it on this timetable. It was necessary to deal with the earlier appropriation order under the urgent procedure because the money was needed there and then in the Northern Ireland Exchequer for the business of carrying on government. In this case, we have had some weeks' breathing space, and, provided that the order is approved tonight in this House and in another place, we can manage through the normal procedure.
This order has not been before the Advisory Commission because it does not raise questions of policy. In a sense, it is the end product of a variety of policy questions. It is the purpose and hope of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to seek the advice and wisdom of the Advisory Commission on major policy issues and legislation which raises major policy issues, such as parts of the local government reform. This order does not raise broad questions of policy; it raises the question of appropriating


the money to implement policies already decided.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South raised the question of criminal injuries and compensation. It was also referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). We have attempted to do a great deal in recent weeks to speed up the procedures and machinery within the existing law, and in order to do so we have brought in more staff. We have brought forward a system of paying 70 per cent. on account as soon as the total is settled. We have gone further and proposed systems whereby, before even the settlement is reached or the amount of damage is finally agreed, the Ministry of Finance runs an emergency finance scheme and the Ministry of Commerce runs an emergency help scheme—in the former case for traders, shopkeepers, and so on, and in the latter case for firms and businesses put out of business. In these ways we have been able to get money quickly to people and firms and organisations which have been hit.
The system can always be improved, but there has been a speeding up of the procedure. We keep the matter under constant review. My hon. Friend and I and officials of the Northern Ireland Government are constantly considering ways of speeding it up further. We have made substantial improvements, particularly in some of the more complicated procedures which we found to be unnecessary or burdensome.
I wish to say a few words on the question of accountability, which has been raised in previous debates and today. It is important that we should get it straight. The matters which give concern in the House relate to the annual accounts which have been drawn up, audited and reported on by the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor General. With regard to the period for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, it will not be until the late autumn of 1973—that is, four or five months after the end of the financial year 1972–73—that the accounts for 1972–73 and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report will be published.
As to what is happening now, a decision on how to handle these accounts is not immediate, although it is highly

important, and there may well be something to be said for waiting so that the necessary decision is the right one, taken in the light of all the circumstances. Hon. Members can be assured that my right hon. Friend will look for proper arrangements as to how these accounts in future should be dealt with. That assurance can be given.
Obviously, rather different problems arise over the accounts for the period before my right hon. Friend became responsible: the accounts for 1970–71, for instance, which were presented last November and were before the Public Accounts Committee when the Northern Ireland Parliament was prorogued. It did not complete its examination of those accounts and did not produce a report, but in order that matters raised in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report should receive due attention the Ministry of Finance in Northern Ireland, in exercise of its normal Treasury function, will pursue the various points with the Departments concerned and will keep the Comptroller and Auditor General fully informed of any decision taken.
That leaves the accounts for 1971–72 which are now being prepared, again relating to the period before my right hon. Friend had responsibility. The Comptroller and Auditor General will carry out his audit and make his report in the normal way. The accounts and the report on them will not be published till well into the autumn. One can give the assurance that my right hon. Friend will make a further statement before that on the handling of those accounts.
I think that disposes of the precise problems which I know have rightly and properly concerned hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South raised, as also did the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who is no longer here, a point on the secret services. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Belfast, West did prophesy all too accurately the kind of ministerial answer he would get, because, although I do not wish to be unhelpful, it really would be completely against the public interest to disclose the purposes for which this money is required. I do not think I can usefully say more than that this evening. It is a modest sum. We believe that the


nomenclature is the appropriate one, and I cannot say more on that matter. I am sorry about that.
On the very important question of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) was good enough to give me warning in advance that he wanted to raise this matter under the police Vote, asking first of all about the rôle of the police force. The answer to his question, as I indicated, I think, in my letter, although I am quite happy to give it again, is that the police force is governed by the recommendations of the Hunt Committee and the security of Northern Ireland from subversion is limited to the coverage of intelligence, protection of important persons, and the enforcement of the relevant laws. This was accepted at the time by the Northern Ireland Government and it is the principle on which the division of the responsibility between the police and the Army in Northern Ireland is based. I think that makes clear—although I suspect from my hon. Friend's remarks he will not think it so—the answer to his question. That is the policy view taken on this matter.
It is true that during the present state of unrest it is necessary to provide additional arms and equipment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary for the protection of individuals, protective clothing, armoured vehicles, and the issue of more weapons for protection, outside the limitations imposed by the Hunt Committee.
Whenever equipment is obtained other than through Army channels or channels equivalent to Army channels it is in no way inferior. There have been delays in some cases, but these have been due to the supply position. Everything is done to avoid delay. It is right that the police no longer have armoured cars; they have only some vehicles which are being fitted for protection of the occupants. What the Royal Ulster Constabulary may require for the future it will be for the Chief Constable and the police authorities to determine. There is no question in present thinking, I should make it clear, about the return to the Hunt Committee recommendations as soon as circumstances permit, but we must appreciate how large a job is being done by thousands of soldiers, by the Ulster De-

fence Regiment, and so on. The answer is that they cannot do that job and, as my hon. Friend says, we fervently hope peace will return, but until it does major security forces will be required. The Government do not believe, and it would not be right to suggest, that the major tasks which fall upon our security forces, which they discharge so excellently and which excite the admiration of all in the House and outside, should ever be devolved back upon the police force.

Mr. Molyneaux: My hon. Friend has said that in matters of equipment and tactics the police are largely governed by the Hunt Committee proposals. Although I accept that this is so in respect of arms, there is a marked departure from the recommendations of the Hunt Report that police stations in Northern Ireland should become community and general information centres where people may ask questions. That was an admirable recommendation. As the Member of Parliament for Antrim, South, however, I would not even be admitted to the police station, and if I were admitted I doubt that I should be able to get out over the defences.

Mr. Howell: That was one of the proposals put forward by the Hunt Committee but, as the list of equipment involves a departure from the Hunt Committee recommendations, so also with the horrific crimes which Northern Ireland has had to suffer, the needs and demands of security and protection have made it impossible in some circumstances to go along with all the proposals. I recognise the departure. The fact remains that the general hope and view of those in authority is to move back again towards the recommendations of the Hunt Committee.
Police pay, which was specifically referred to by my hon. Friend, is broadly equivalent to police pay in the rest of the United Kingdom although there may be variations in specific cases. If my hon. Friend would like to pursue that further. I shall be glad to give him the details.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) spoke with a great deal of authority on community relations, of which he has had considerable experience. He raised the question which others have raised about the difference between the Ministry and the commission. Although


the hon. Member is not now present, I will make clear the difference for the record.
The Ministry is concerned with policy within the Government and with the influencing and direction of community relations in relation to other aspects of Government policy and the work of other Departments. The Ministry is also concerned directly with a number of community relations projects throughout Northern Ireland. Its main concern is with questions of community relations as they affect Government policy and the work of Government Departments. By contrast, the commission is concerned with practical work on the ground and with the fostering of harmonious relations outside the Government and throughout the Province. There is, therefore, a difference. The two bodies work closely together and there has to be a certain degree of dovetailing which means that in one sense they overlap, although each performs a different and vitally important function.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North asked whether it would be possible to make a statement of intention on tourism if legislation cannot be brought forward at any early date. My hope is that legislation will be brought forward before long. If it is not, I undertake to make a statement fairly soon to set out the Government's intention. On the question of Mr. McGrath, my hon. Friend's constituent, I will write in detail on this matter because that is the way of handling it.
My hon. Friend referred to American propaganda. This is a serious and difficult matter and, as I think he has been told in answer to a Question, the British Government's views have been made known to the American authorities very explicitly. We regret that this distortion—because that is what this kind of propaganda is—should continue. These feelings have been made clearly known to the United States authorities.
I was also asked about the Belfast City cemetery. We recognise that the vandalism which has taken place has been particularly vicious and unpleasant. In cases of spasmodic and unplanned vandalism, it is difficult to catch the culprits and protect the community against such outrages. However, we are aware of the

problem, and the security forces do their utmost to prevent this kind of thing happening.
The hon. Gentleman then made a number of points about housing, which I note. I will take up with him the point about squatters in more detail in a letter. In regard to housing policy I should like to put on record that the Housing Executive is carrying out a superb job in appallingly difficult circumstances. It is operating in conditions and situations in which the tragic events of Sunday were a good example, and it is constantly finding itself caught up in the pressures of attacks and counter-attacks. Despite this situation, it is doing an excellent job in housing and rehousing people and in providing emergency accommodation for those who are thrown out of their homes by violence, fear and intimidation.
The question of providing cover in respect of cash robberies is a very tricky problem. There are all sorts of aspects which are almost impossible to safeguard against. I am willing to look at the matter again, but I feel that the possibilities of fraud are too great to make any scheme a practicable proposition.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West spoke about the Cabinet Secretariat in Stormont Castle. There is no salary for the Prime Minister since there is no Prime Minister, but there is an administration. If there is an administration there has to be a secretariat. In present circumstances the administration has a very heavy load to carry. Therefore, the budget for the cabinet secretariat will continue. As an administration continues—and my right hon. Friend and the other Ministers in our Department are part of this process—it has to fulfil the duties of administration. The hon. Gentleman mentioned hospitality. Even I and my colleagues, in intervals following our various aircraft trips and other ministerial duties, find it is our duty as members of an administration to offer hospitality. This accounts for the hospitality budget. The administration of Northern Ireland exists and continues. Not all hon. Members realise that this is the situation.
I deplored the hon. Gentleman's general attack on civil servants with unspecific charges and allegations. If charges and allegations are to be made about civil servants in Northern Ireland, let names


be put forward and specific allegations be made and they will be investigated, but general allegations are not helpful. They are the kind of generalities which in the present atmosphere tend to increase fear and to make for difficulties.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) spoke of the problems arising because of the shortage of time. There are only two minutes left for me to deal with this point since we have 1½ hours in which to deal with this order and the time is fast running out. My hon. Friend made an attack on my right hon. Friend's policy in fair and open terms. I believe that attack to be misplaced, and the future will show that this is so. This is a fundamental difference of view, and nothing can be said by me other than that I believe my hon. Friend to be profoundly wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) mentioned electricity surcharges. I shall look into the matter and see what has arisen and write to him.
I believe that that completes nearly all the points which have been put to me. If there are any others I will take them up. I ask the House to approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Before I call the Under-Secretary of State to propose the next order, I should like to know whether any hon. Member other than Front Bench spokesmen wishes to raise any debate upon it.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East) rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.

5.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

NORTHERN IRELAND (COUNTY COURTS)

5.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That the County Courts (Additional Sittings) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 965), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.
If I may make just a brief comment——

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: On a point of order. Could you help the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I refer you to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when today's business was discussed on 6th July. He said:
As for the business of the House, I draw my hon. Friend's attention"—
he was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—
to the fact that under the procedure which I have proposed it will be possible for the education order to have six and a half hours of debate"—
that would have taken us until 5.30 p.m. on the first order—
and for there to be a further 1¼hours of debate on each of the other three orders, if the House so wishes. For any order in this House, whether it be in respect of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England, to have the chance of that length of debate is not too bad."—[Official Report, 6th July, 1972; Vol. 840, c 756.]
May I refer you also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to what Mr. Speaker said on the previous occasion when we discussed a series of Northern Ireland orders:
On the Irish point, as a matter of order perhaps I might point out that there is to be a debate on Northern Ireland affairs on the Adjournment, which will therefore be very wide. As to the orders, the first deals with exported animals, the second with compulsory insurance and employers' liability, and the third with the Appropriation Bill. The House may well decide to get rid of the first two rather more quickly than the one and a half hours allowed for each, in which case this Motion will enable the debate on the Appropriation Bill to go on until 2.30 instead of being limited to the one and a half hours.
Mr. Speaker returned to the point at ten o'clock that night when he said:
For any hon. Members who were not here earlier today I should explain that there


are three orders to be discussed, one dealing with the export of animals, which is fairly narrow, one dealing with employers' liability which is very narrow and the third, the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order on which there can be a pretty wide discussion. Therefore, if the House should decide to take the first two orders fairly quickly there can be a wide debate until 2.30 a.m. according to the Business Motion which has been approved."—[Official Report, 12th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 1009, 1135.]
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I remind you that the last time we discussed similar orders, on 3rd July, having sat through the entire day's proceedings, at five minutes to midnight, when the time for debate elapsed, I drew Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that on an important Bill with 54 Clauses and seven Schedules only three Ulster Members had had a chance to take part in the debate. Other hon. Members, besides myself, had not had an opportunity to take part in the debate.
I know that the House is burdened with work. We have had a heavy programme this Session dealing with the Common Market and other economic affairs. In common with all the Ulster Members, I am grateful to the servants of the House for the extra time they spend. But Northern Ireland affairs are very serious. Other Ulster Members who have not had the chance to speak today had expected, because of the promises and statements to which I have referred, that the debate could go on until 10.30 p.m. Indeed, I read in The Times this morning that that was so. It appears that the debate is being cut short, in spite of the clear statements by Mr. Speaker and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we should be allowed more time tonight.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The official Opposition are entirely satisfied with the situation. Perhaps that is because we understand it. The last time this happened, a Motion was put to the House at ten o'clock. The Motion enabled the business to go on until half-past two. It enabled three orders to be discussed for an hour and a half each. It enabled us to concertina them in the way the hon. Gentleman has explained. That suited us because we had had a full day's debate on the Adjournment and the Motion met the needs of the situation.
Regarding today's business, we again understand, because we bothered to find out the needs of the situation, that because it is a Friday we have had a debate from eleven o'clock, although it was shortened because of the statement. There were four orders, each timed for one and a half hours. Therefore, The Times got it right, and the debate could go on until half-past ten. Technically at four o'clock we could have had an hour and a half's debate on education because of the generosity of the Government—I hope this constant praise of the Government is not too embarrassing—which would have taken us until half-past five. In fact, the debate finished earlier.
We had one and a half hours on the preceding order and two more orders followed it. I have suggested that because of their nature they do not need discusion because one of them brings Northern Ireland completely into line with the superannuation arrangements made in this country as recently as March by the Westminster Parliament, and the other is intended to increase the county court sittings, which, given the nature of the problems of Northern Ireland, is not exactly a major issue. We understand the issue and we are satisfied that it is what we accepted.

Mr. Evelyn King: On a point of order——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): If the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) will allow me to reply first, he may find it unnecessary to go further with his point of order. What the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has just said is true. Our business on the previous occasion of which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) spoke was regulated by a special Resolution of the House. We are not now working under that but are working under Standing Order No. 5, of which part refers to Standing Order No. 3. It is clear that the procedure is that we could start at four o'clock with the first order, which could go on till half-past five, then start with the second order, and so on, unless the House decided to finish with the lot earlier. Unless the House finished with them earlier, that would be the position. There is nothing I can do about it now except, having had the


necessary break, to ask the House to get on with the proceedings as quickly as possible.

Mr. McMaster: On a further point of order. I am sorry to prolong the proceedings but you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the first order would run until 5.30. I would remind you that the appropriation order was the second and not the first. I lodge a strong protest because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said clearly that the education order would have six and a half hours' debate and there would be one and a half hours each for the remaining three orders. My right hon. Friend said that clearly, but we have not had that time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Leader of the House is not the final arbiter in these matters. These are matters for the Chair. It is for the Chair to interpret Standing Orders. The first order was finished before the time allotted and so the next order had a corresponding amount of time allotted to it. Had debate on it ended earlier there would have been a saving of time, as I hope there will be now.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I make it plain at this stage that our quarrel is not with the Chair. I do not quarrel with the interpretation of the rules which you have just put to us. In the absence of such an order of the House as we had on a previous occasion, I have no doubt that your interpretation is correct, and I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). But the only way in which we were able to make our complaint on the Floor of the House was by addressing points of order to you.
Our complaint is to the Government. We were plainly under the impression from what had been said that the same kind of procedure would be adopted today as was adopted on the previous occasion. Consequently, there is a sense of grievance in that many of my hon. Friends who would have wished to take part in a wider debate have not been called. That is the position as it stands.

Mr. David Howell: I was just explaining that the main object of this order is

to enable additional sittings of the county court in Northern Ireland to be held for the purpose of dealing with persons awaiting trial on indictment before that court, thus shortening the time any person would have to spend in custody pending trial. Additional sittings will also deal with appeals made to that court against an order of the magistrates' court.
I am prepared to go into more detail, but in the circumstances, and in the light of what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has said, the House will perhaps be satisfied that I have explained the main purpose of the order.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman has made the case for the order, albeit briefly. It is something that we can take as read. I have two or three questions to ask, but in view of the business of the day I will write to him.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I appreciate that the staff of the House are very loyally giving us their time and support and I do not wish to detain them a moment longer than necessary.
Last night I tried to get in on a debate on another order—an order increasing the salaries of Metropolitan magistrates. I did not get the opportunity to speak, but in all conscience I could not support the order and voted against the increase. It galls me to think that here we have an order to increase the number of county court sittings in Northern Ireland, yet we have heard not a whisper from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about an increase in salary for the judges; nor has there been any statement about an increase in the salaries of the resident magistrates.
They have a terrible time in Northern Ireland. Their lists are full. Their duties are onerous. They work four times as hard as their opposite numbers in England and Wales. They are subjected to all sorts of threats. The home of one resident magistrate has been bombed, and perhaps other magistrates have been physically intimidated. I should have thought that the Government, in increasing the number of sittings of the county court, would have made some mention of an increase in salary.
This is my only reason for intervening in the debate. I feel that if we are making provision for additional sittings, the Government ought to provide some recompense at the same time to those who take on these very responsible and onerous duties. Last night, the Government put through an order to increase the salaries of Metropolitan magistrates by £1,500, and I hope that my hon. Friend will now intimate to these members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland that there will be an increase in salary for them.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I hope to be a little more in order than the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). I apologise if that comment is an implied criticism of the Chair.
I am concerned that cases should be heard quickly and got through quickly. I am also concerned, however, about internees who are taken from internment and put on trial, but found to be not guilty, or who do not have evidence offered against them, only to be taken back to internment. That creates a bad impression, as the Under-Secretary will realise.

Mr. David Howell: As has already been suggested, I cannot take up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), because they do not come within the terms of the order. If there were such a whisper this would not be the place to whisper it.
I note what has been said by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.
That the County Courts (Additional Sittings) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 965), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. David Howell.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (SUPERANNUATION)

6.1 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move,
That the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.

Some comment has already been made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about this superannuation order. I hope that it will be sufficient for the House to have an assurance that it is parallel in almost every detail with the superannuation order of 1972 governing pensions for United Kingdom civil servants and other categories of public servants. This order extends that legislation in almost every detail to Northern Ireland civil servants and other categories of Northern Ireland public service and public sector workers.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have mentioned this matter on another occasion. The order brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in this respect.
I should like to take this opportunity to praise those public servants—the police, the teachers, the health service staff, local government employees, civil servants and others—who do so much good work in the present troubles in Northern Ireland. Tribute to their work must be paid by those of us who go to Northern Ireland so often but do not have to spend so long there as those who live and work there.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I should like to add the gratitude of this side of the House to the public servants covered by the order. I should like briefly especially to mention the police.
Much has been said during our earlier debates about the rôle which the police have played in Northern Ireland, and I concur with the sentiments of many hon. Members. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude not only to the RUC but to the members of the Ulster Special Constabulary, the "B" Specials as they were called. It was a mistake to disband this force, a mistake only now beginning to be appreciated.
In a situation such as that in Northern Ireland there is a need for some form of local militia that knows the ground and is able to deal with the situation properly and skilfully, particularly when it comes to closing roads towards the borders and similar matters, identifying possible terrorists, which, with the best will in the world, it is impossible for the Army to


do, even though it employs many more soldiers to cope with the situation.
I hope that the Government will bend their best efforts towards restoring the place of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve. These forces should be used on the streets more and more and should make it their business to patrol areas where law and order have been restored and areas which are now known as the "no-go" areas.
I should like my hon. Friend to assure the House that he is prepared, in consultation with his right hon. Friend, to ensure that where the Royal Ulster Constabulary is being used on guard duties, for instance, those duties will be increasingly taken over by the Army so that the ordinary policeman may be sent out on his beat doing his best to restore justice and law and order to Northern Ireland.
There is much more I would have liked to say if I could have got in earlier, particularly about the special problems in my constituency, the shipyard and the aircraft factory and other industries, which as my hon. Friend said in opening the debate, are suffering from the fact that output in Northern Ireland is falling and there is little alternative employment as a result of the troubles. I pay tribute to the Civil Service in Northern Ireland; the men of the various Departments covered by the order who have given loyal service for many years. I think particularly of the persons in the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Commerce. They have always given most courteous and urgent consideration to matters raised by my hon. Friends and myself on behalf of constituents. It would be wrong to allow this moment to pass without paying tribute to them.

Mr. David Howell: I cannot really comment on the point made about the police, because this order does not cover the police. I should like to echo the words of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about the value and work of public service workers and civil servants in Northern Ireland. This order provides the framework for them to get the benefits of the various new schemes, in some cases retrospectively, which have been applied to public service and Civil Service workers in the

United Kingdom. I believe that it will be widely welcomed.

Mr. McMaster: Before my hon. Friend sits down may I draw his attention to article 15 which is headed "Police", and which deals with the constabulary?

Mr. Howell: That is certainly so. Some minor changes are made, but the police scheme is left as before. It is not altered by the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Superannuation (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

UNEMPLOYMENT (WAGE-STOP PROVISIONS)

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Michael Barnes: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the wage stop. The wage stop is the provision which says that a person's income when he is unemployed or temporarily sick must be no greater than his income when he is in full-time work. This means that if someone's income in work is less than what the State would pay a family of his size in benefits then, when that person is unemployed or temporarily sick, the amount he can receive in benefit is limited to the amount of his income when he is in full-time work.
This means that it is possible for two identical families with identical needs to get different amounts of aid from the State, the greater benefit going to that family which in better days was better off. It may surprise many people to realise that there are large numbers of people in full-time work whose income is less than that which they would receive if they were on benefit. This sadly is true. There are tens of thousands of such families. I am not sure of the latest figures of those families in full-time work with an income below the official poverty line and I would be interested to hear of any figures which the Minister has.
The effect of the wage stop is made worse at present by the high level of unemployment, especially the long-term unemployment that is creeping in in some cases, and also by the growing unemployment among registered disabled persons. A total of 45,000 such people were unemployed in 1966 compared with 80,000 in 1971. This means that people becoming unemployed in these low incomes groups can be condemned by the wage stop to remain in the direst poverty in some cases for many months, because of the current unemployment situation.
The last major examination of the wage stop was in 1967, when the Supplementary Benefits Commission published a report, "The Administration of the Wage Stop" which followed concern that had been expressed at the extent of poverty revealed in the survey which the Ministry had carried out the previous year called "Circumstances of Families." The Commission recommended in that report modifications to the wage stop which went some way to making the wage stop less harsh. But I intend to argue that the time is due for a further review of the wage stop; indeed, I go further and say that the time has come for the wage stop to be abolished.
We must be clear about what the wage stop means to the families to whom it is applied. A very interesting study by the Child Poverty Action Group was published a few months ago. It was a study of 18 wage-stopped families. A sample as small as that is not statistically valid, but it was a very important study because of the way in which it highlighted the human situations behind the wage stop. I should like to quote from the report which the Child Poverty Action Group produced. At the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5 it said of people on the wage stop:
For all of them life was a constant struggle in which every piece of expenditure had to be weighed up against another: a loaf of bread against the bus fare to school; warm clothes for the children against the rent; the rent against the bills piling up. They were caught up in a hopeless cycle, living from one payment day to the next, the money always running out too soon so that by the end of each week's cycle they were living on bread and marge, and were borrowing from the neighbours".
Later the report says:
The children, too, were often forced to live home-centred lives because of the lack

of money. It was difficult to go around with the other children in the area when they had no pocket money to spend. The parents felt this very keenly".
The study also drew attention to some of the unfairnesses which arise through the implementation of the wage stop. The most serious is the failure in some cases to allow for any overtime which might have been worked in calculating how much benefit people should get. If there is precise evidence of overtime earnings, the Supplementary Benefits Commission takes that into account in calculating the benefit which families which are wage-stopped receive. But two-thirds of wage-stopped families are not, it seems, able to offer any evidence of earnings, and therefore their benefit is calculated on the basis of notional earnings; and "notional earnings" means the national joint council rate for local authority manual workers in the labourer or light labourer grades. For notional earnings, however, there is a specific instruction in the A code, which is the confidential instruction issued by the Department to Supplementary Benefits Commission officers, not to make an addition to the benefit to allow for overtime.
The national joint council rate I have just mentioned is £19·90 for labourers in the London area and £19·45 for light labourers. Outside London it is £17·90 for labourers and £17·45 for light labourers. But in November, 1971, the National Union of Public Employees and the local authorities agreed between them a guaranteed minimum income of £21 a week in London and £19 a week outside London. It is very unfair that the commission should apply notional earnings when calculating the rate of benefit below the guaranteed levels negotiated between the NUPE and the local authorities.
This matter has been the subject of a rather unsatisfactory correspondence between my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, who is Lord Collison, and Mr. Frank Field, Director of the Child Poverty Action Group. Lord Collison apparently insists that the basic national joint council rate is a more reasonable yardstick than the guaranteed minimum agreed between the National Union of Public Employees and the local authorities. I must say that I find this view of Lord Collison totally illogical


and I wonder whether the Minister is able today to offer fuller justification for it than perhaps is contained in the correspondence to which I have referred.
There are one or two other worrying things in the report and survey by the Child Poverty Action Group. There is the fact, for example, in page 16 that most of the families in the sample did not know that they were being wage-stopped, and that in many of the cases the wage stop was being incorrectly applied. This must raise doubts in our minds whether all those other families at present wage-stopped are receiving their rightful allowances.
Another point about the implementation of the wage stop is that the system relies so much on the judgment and discretion of individual officers, which in turn must depend on how many or how few wage-stopped claimants they have on their books. This obviously can lead to fairly wide disparities in the amount of care which they are able to devote to assessing different cases.
In view of all this, it is right for us to question at the present time whether the wage stop is worth all this trouble, whether it is worth the trouble and difficulty of implementation, whether it is worth all the suffering which it causes and especially whether it is worth all this in view of the very small number of families which are now subject to this wage-stop provision, which, I think I am right in saying, is of the order of 10,000 families.
It is not as though the wage stop were an incentive to get people back to work. The Report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission on the "Administration of the Wage Stop" makes this quite clear when it says:
The purpose of the wage stop is not to provide an incentive to a man to get work. The wage stop does not require a man to get less when receiving Supplementary Benefit than he would get when working. What it does is to ensure that an unemployed man's income is no greater than it would be if he were in full-time employment.
In that case, surely, what a man's earnings would be if he were in full-time employment must be based on a more realistic assessment, particularly an assessment which includes possible overtime, than appears to be being applied in many cases at the moment.
In practice I believe that the wage stop tends to be used by some officials as an incentive to get people back to work. I think the hostility which the Child Poverty Action Group survey found on the part of claimants at the attitude sometimes found in the supplementary benefit offices tends to bear this out. In page 16 of the report, one of the families in the sample is quoted as saying:
The Social Security make you feel they are doing you a favour, that you should be grateful for everything you get. A frightfully demoralising experience the whole thing.
In the case of registered disabled people, there is a provision to remove the wage stop in those cases where their prospects of getting any work seem very remote. Surely the logic of that must be that the wage stop is in a sense an incentive to get people back to work, and that is why it is removed from those people who have no prospects of getting any work.
With unemployment running at its present level, any kind of incentive to get back to work for wage stop families is very hard indeed for them to comply with.
Because of the slight confusion which I think many people detect in official thinking about the wage stop, whether it is meant to be an incentive or whether it is not—although I know it is officially denied, I think there is this slight confusion in the thinking there—because of the unfairnesses which arise from its implementation, because of the suffering which flows from it, because of the difficulties in implementing it, and, above all, because of the small number of families involved, I appeal to the Minister to carry out a further review of the wage stop at the present time, in the hope that he may feel there are grounds for finally abolishing it.

6.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) for raising this subject, albeit at a rather unusual hour for a Friday.
The basic problem, as I think the hon. Member will agree, is that of low wages and high family commitments, or, as in most cases, both. The wage stop is a reflection of this, and successive Governments over many years have accepted the


need for a wage stop provision of one form or another. I reaffirm the Government's concern about family poverty. We have already taken practical steps to relieve it, and these will continue.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the purpose of the wage-stop is not to provide a man with an incentive to return to work. It is simply to ensure that an unemployed man's income is no greater than it would be if he were in full-time work. Because it is not possible to pay supplementary benefit to people in full-time work whose supplementary benefit requirements exceed their take-home pay, it has always been considered inequitable to treat people temporarily out of work more favourably than those who happen to have relatively low-paid jobs.
The standard of living of wage-stopped families is no different from that of families of low-paid workers with the same income. The solution to the problem is to be found not within the supplementary benefit scheme but in the field of family support. This is because wages are necessarily "blind" to family size, which is the chief cause of the wage-stop.
In recent years two factors have particularly affected administration of the wage-stop and the numbers involved. The first is the introduction of the FIS scheme in August, 1971. The second is the decision referred to by the hon. Gentleman which was taken by the Supplementary Benefits Commission in November, 1967, to link the earnings for wage-stop purposes of labourers and light labourers to the wage rates negotiated by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities (Manual Workers)—the NJC rates.
FIS is, therefore, an important factor in reducing the numbers wage-stopped and has made a greater practical impact in this particular area of family poverty than any measure introduced by the previous Government. This is evidenced by the fact that wage-stopped claimants are now 11,000 or 3 per cent. of unemployed supplementary benefit recipients compared with 24,000, or 10 per cent. in May, 1970.
Adoption by the Commission of NJC rates for wage-stopping labourers and light labourers is also important because it has the effect of applying a notional and freely negotiated wage rate to these

claimants for whom it might otherwise be extremely difficult to arrive at a reasonable figure, given the great variety of labouring jobs which in practice they might obtain. Practical experience has also shown that this notional wage rate is often higher than the claimant's previous actual earnings or his potential earnings in any employment which he could reasonably be expected to obtain.
It is important that the wage stop should be administered with the greatest possible sympathy. The hon. Gentleman referred to the CPAG report. He said that it was a very limited report, as the CPAG admitted. The Chairman of the Commission has been in touch with the CPAG about this. We are anxious to investigate these cases, and, if we can get permission to do so, we shall carry out inquiries in all cases to see what we can learn from them. The Commission carried out an elaborate review of its functions in relation to the wage stop and reported to the then Minister in November, 1967. The Commission made a number of important proposals for modifying the operation of the wage-stop, and these have been progressively brought into effect.
I have already mentioned the beneficial effect of the NJC rates. An equally important aspect which the hon. Gentleman just touched on is of disabled people whose disablement is such as no longer to justify the application of the wage stop to them. The Commission decided that people with a combination of age, disability and length of unemployment who were virtually unemployable should no longer be wage-stopped. As a result of a special review almost 500 of the 8,000 claimants had the wage stop removed in January, 1970. Removal of the wage stop from virtually unemployable claimants now proceeds as a continuing exercise.
My hon. Friend asked whether people affected by wage stop were informed. There is a specific instruction that they should be so informed. Equally, there are regularly reviews through home visits at intervals usually of 13 weeks, but more frequently if necessary. In other words, the Commission is in close touch with their needs and does all it can to assist them.
Perhaps I may remind the hon. Gentleman of one or two other points which I


think will assist in relieving the problems and difficulties which arise. I have already referred to the FIS scheme, and this will continue to have an impact on the number of wage-stopped and to reduce them markedly by comparison with pre-FIS experience. Furthermore, the Housing Finance Bill will help. The national rent rebate and allowance scheme will give some help by providing that a wage-stopped claimant will receive the same rent rebate or allowance as when he was in work, thus reducing the amount of rent for supplementary benefit purposes.
In the longer term the scheme of tax credits will also help by providing additional income related in part to family size. Research is taking place into these problems, and the following studies are relevant. There is a social survey of two-parent families receiving FIS, and this, among other things, will show how

their income when employed compares with benefits they would receive if unemployed or sick. There is continuing work being done in my Department on the family expenditure survey with regard to low income families. Furthermore, the Department of Employment and my own Department are jointly sponsoring research into long-term unemployment by the Department of Social and Administrative Studies at Oxford University.
I hope I have been able to show the hon. Gentleman that a great deal is being done to ensure that this scheme is being administered in the most sympathetic way possible and also to see that other measures are brought forward, as has happened in recent times to deal with the problems of family poverty.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Six o'clock.